Highly irritable and angered person (Please HELP)
bra...@mail.ru
She is extremely irritable,offendable.
In a split second her mood can change into a deep depression.she
enters a state of stupor (as she says),shock,anger and rage.
She may remain like this for at least the rest of the day or the
evening.
She becomes completely dumb and stares in the void with total dispair.
She seems to be extremely negative to me,cruel,numb.
I can't talk her into any reason.
She rejects any arguments or excuses.And it gets worst and worst.
She's persuaded that she better be alone.And she rejects everything
from me.
There is something sadistic in it (not in a physical but in a mental
way).
I'm crying and imploring her,but always to no avail.
Eventually the next day,she calms down.
And loves me again and says that I'm the most remarkable man she ever
knew or met.
Me, being very diplomatic,patient and extremely cautious about what
may upset her,still it is very difficult
to avoid those disputes.I'm trying not show any opion of mine because
of fear of starting a conflict,but even this irritates her sometimes,
she says,you have no opinion on anything.
Please,I would like to have some sort of advice,opinion or any
diagnosis about her temper or state of mind.
I have to add that she has a hypethyroidism.Does this explain it all?
What I noticed about her, is the total lack of will power and has a
tendency to be easily discouraged or gives up in front of the
slightest difficulty.
But when everything seems ok to her,she is the loveliest and most
caring woman in the world.
Please,help me
Mandy
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
I wish I knew what to say to help and support you and your girlfriend but
please try and get her to see her GP and take this post along with you so
that the doctor knows how it is affecting you too! You don't have to go
through this alone!
--
Stay Safe, Mandy
Money talks, chocolate sings
http://mandy2.bravehost.com/
h...@nospam.org
when she is in her good moods is she willing and able to discuss her
bad moods objectively? Have you tried to discuss possible causes with
her? Would she be willing to seek out medical evaluation of her
moods? I would say try to get her to see her doctor. There may be
environmental causes (ie allergies) or certainly could be brain
chemistry. Has she been like this her whole life or is this a recent
developement?
Hal
bra...@mail.ru
Thank you very much for you supportive and kind words.
She overtly acknowledges that she has those problems and that her
behaviour is not right.
She even says that she's kind of psycho or neurotic person.
She says for example,we'll be together as long as I can stand her.
She this when she's in a right state,but when she goes beserk she does
not acknowledge anything,she becomes the total opposite.
She has been like this her whole life.She is very capricious also.
She told me that she has been like this with her mum.
And her mum always tried to obey her and please her.
But she really loves her mum and is very caring about her.
She's willing and able to discuss her mood swings,but often says that
it was my fault
and I nearly always agree with her because I'm afraid it will begin
all over again.
I don't like conflicts and am always trying to avoid them.
But nevertheless they happen from time to time.
They happen regularly every one or two weeks,in the best of cases
there's a 3 weeks span.
We've known each other for a year.And we are deeply in love with each
other.
What kind of doctor should she consult?
Psychiatrist?
Mandy
f5812d...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
This is just my opinion but her first stop should be her GP and go by
what he/she says as the doctor will know what is available to her! Does
she have internet access? If she does, maybe encourage her to post here
too?
Nom dePlume
news:d0251883-42a3-4c8f...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
===
From your description, I could believe her problems arise from
hyperthyroidism, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder,
depression, or something else. So I agree that she should first see a
general practitioner for some guidance about where to go next. However,
while he will hopefully have good advice to follow, I would recommend,
independently, that she see both an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist for
evaluation, to make sure the bases are covered.
--
Nom dePlume, Ph.D.
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Find my book, Medicines for Mental health, and free drug information, at
www.MentalMeds.org
=====
era...@gmail.com
her metabolism---- remember girls poetry etc.
make her slow down her metabolism.
Erach
era...@gmail.com
clockwise around a temple --- a photo of you ---- a photo of her
mother --- a photo of god ---- food --- music anything ---- in the
house and occassionally anti-clockwise
erach
On Oct 3, 10:10Â pm, "Nom dePlume" <m...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
> <bran...@mail.ru> wrote in message
Colonel Sanders
> My girlfriend has a very difficult character.
> She is extremely irritable,offendable.
> In a split second her mood can change into a deep depression.she
> enters a state of stupor (as she says),shock,anger and rage.
> She may remain like this for at least the rest of the day or the
> evening.
> She becomes completely dumb and stares in the void with total dispair.
> She seems to be extremely negative to me,cruel,numb.
> I can't talk her into any reason.
> She rejects any arguments or excuses.And it gets worst and worst.
> She's persuaded that she better be alone.And she rejects everything
> from me.
> There is something sadistic in it (not in a physical but in a mental
> way).
She'll grow out of it just before menopause.
Sit down and write what you need in a woman
and look for a new girlfriend. When she goes
wacky on you too, replace again and again until
you reach the age of 45-50 and the available
material would be mostly desperate woomen
wiling to kerb their egocentric views.
h...@nospam.org
>ASK HER TO WALK CLOCK-WISE (earth's gravity/universe/etc.) is
>clockwise around a temple --- a photo of you ---- a photo of her
>mother --- a photo of god ---- food --- music anything ---- in the
>house and occassionally anti-clockwise
>erach
>
wow. That's just plain crazy.
maybe she should just see a doctor instead.
Hal
era...@gmail.com
ration // pray before blowing her temper // count 1 to 10 etc.
Erach
On Oct 3, 10:10Â pm, "Nom dePlume" <m...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
> <bran...@mail.ru> wrote in message
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I wish I knew what to say to help and support you and your girlfriend but
> please try and get her to see her GP and take this post along with you so
> that the doctor knows how it is affecting you too! You don't have to go
> through this alone!
What I read sounds like it could simply be due to a normal `relationship
problem' type issue. I've seen symptoms exactly as described in women
trapped in an unhappy relationship/life situation (it sounds a bit like
my mother, for example).
I'd not go looking for a medical reason until that side of things had
been looked into properly.
Depression - and something like that is apparent - is sometimes simply
the sensible response to an unbearable situation.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
dan...@rocketmail.com
> My girlfriend has a very difficult character.
> She is extremely irritable,offendable.
> In a split second her mood can change into a deep depression.she
> enters a state of stupor (as she says),shock,anger and rage.
> She may remain like this for at least the rest of the day or the
> evening.
> She becomes completely dumb and stares in the void with total dispair.
> She seems to be extremely negative to me,cruel,numb.
> I can't talk her into any reason.
> She rejects any arguments or excuses.And it gets worst and worst.
> She's persuaded that she better be alone.And she rejects everything
> from me.
> There is something sadistic in it (not in a physical but in a mental
> way).
> I'm crying and imploring her,but always to no avail.
So it seems your girlfriend's personality annoys you and you want
someone to define it as a mental disorder. Maybe you're the one who
needs therapy, because you are unable to accept others as they are and
want to change their personalities to suit your taste. Maybe you
think her boobs are too small, so she must suffer from a breast-size
disorder which needs to be treated with silicone implants. Maybe her
hair color is wrong and she should dye it to suit you as well.
Rowland McDonnell
> bran...@mail.ru wrote:
> > My girlfriend has a very difficult character.
> > She is extremely irritable,offendable.
> > In a split second her mood can change into a deep depression.she
> > enters a state of stupor (as she says),shock,anger and rage.
> > She may remain like this for at least the rest of the day or the
> > evening.
> > She becomes completely dumb and stares in the void with total dispair.
> > She seems to be extremely negative to me,cruel,numb.
> > I can't talk her into any reason.
> > She rejects any arguments or excuses.And it gets worst and worst.
> > She's persuaded that she better be alone.And she rejects everything
> > from me.
> > There is something sadistic in it (not in a physical but in a mental
> > way).
> > I'm crying and imploring her,but always to no avail.
> > Eventually the next day,she calms down...
>
> So it seems your girlfriend's personality annoys you and you want
> someone to define it as a mental disorder.
It seems to me that you want to project your view of the world onto
someone else, regardless of what's really going on.
> Maybe you're the one who
> needs therapy, because you are unable to accept others as they are and
> want to change their personalities to suit your taste.
Maybe you're the one who needs educating about people, because you are
unable to accept things as they are and want reality to be otherwise.
It's perfectly bloody obvious that there's a problem here that is
manifesting itself to the original poster as the behaviour he reports.
What *causes* that behaviour - well, that's the interesting question.
The explanation I'd bet on is that there's an unhappy relationship going
on here - which *MIGHT* be caused by personality problems/mental health
disorders, but there's no reason to assume that only one of the two
people in this relationship has the problem in their head. It might be
both, it might be neither. What other factors are relevant? What's the
gneral life situation of these people like? I spy a Russian email
address. Life can be pretty grim for some people in Russia.
We know nothing about such matters. But: I spy signs of depression.
But (again): not all cases of depression are a sign of mental illness.
Sometimes, depression is just the normal human response to `bad stuff
going on'.
> Maybe you
> think her boobs are too small, so she must suffer from a breast-size
> disorder which needs to be treated with silicone implants. Maybe her
> hair color is wrong and she should dye it to suit you as well.
And maybe he mentioned nothing at all about such issues and you're just
projecting your expectations onto him.
Maybe you should take a more charitable stance, given that the OP is to
be commended for seeing the distress his girlfriend is suffering and
making an effort to do something about it. I reckon he's pretty badly
screwed up himself - but so what? He's a decent sort, or he'd not be
trying to find out how to relieve the suffering of another human being.
But what about you? You're as screwed up as anyone around here, and
what are *you* doing to make the world a better place? I see you doing
nothing in that line - which makes me attack the provisional label
`reprehensible' to you. Fucked up Russian: good bloke; fucked up
haranguer of Russian: not a good bloke. That's how I see it.
nep...@gmail.com
it has improved quite notably. If things are as they sound to me and
your girlfriend is like mine (suffering from bipolar type 2 and/or
borderline personality disorder) there is very little you can do. You
can support her through her negative times and slowly get her to
realize she is worth so much more / not responsible for problems that
have nothing to do with her or are not her fault - and endure.
Medications help very little, but Tegretol (carbamazapine) has proven
to be the most useful (as a mood stabilizer.)
It will take a long time and you will have to endure quite a bit.
Don't take it personally - it isn't as it seems, it is likely
childlike behavior she never was able to grow out of due to lifelong
abuse. But if the good times are great and you truly care for her, it
really is worth the effort. I love my wife with all my heart and
continue to support her when needed without hesitation, despite the
hugely improved situation rarely requiring any intervention. It was
all well worth it.
However again this is my situation and does not necessarily have
parallels to yours as I have guessed it does.
All the best to both of you.
M.Butzin
<bra...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:4ffb98e8-8000-4074...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Do you have a video camera? you need to tape this, Take it to a Doc if she
won't go my wife had a head injury in her teens when she woke up three
months later she spoke nothing but Czech, which was fine as she is Czech
but she could speak thirteen different Languages. after a month she
regained the ability to speak English. Now she has touches of Dyslexia and
repeats thing three to four times mixing up the list each time. About once
to twice a month she goes "Off" and and no matter what is said the is no
reasoning with her my sons her mother no one can say anything right
sometimes this "fury" lasts for hours or days. Your shown emotions only
seem to provoke a higher state of reaction. does she reject any physical
touch? Mine does. It seems as if it starts over the most benign thing a
suggestion or a simple misunderstanding, then it snow balls larger and
larger. does she accept responsibility for when something goes wrong? mine
won't, it will be, why can't I just have things my way just once! you never
agree with me. Now she makes list after list and goes over them hourly at
times. the biggest argument we have had is over our sons, she still refers
to them as children and the youngest is almost thirty. I was the original
"Mr.Mom" without the other women, I raised my three sons while she worked,
I had part time jobs while she held down a permanent one for insurance
purposes after the boys were in school full time I returned to work as an
Engineer for the State, as time rolled on she "felt" compelled to try and
"buy" love, attention, whatever from the boys by giving them money whatever
amount she had. If you have kids how does she interact with them?
Especially during one of these outbursts? Has there been any physical
violence? Have you spoke with her family? IF you do be careful, there could
be childhood abuse that is causing this. Talking with her GP is good advice
but she has to ok it having a video of may better help the doc diagnose
what's up so may a CT Scan. If she is on ANY meds look them up on the
internet and ask the druggist about any meds just don't tell them it's for
someone else. Other than that good luck. I hope she gets better and so it
will be for you.
MB
bra...@mail.ru
> I am in a similar situation, but after a couple of years (yes, years)
> it has improved quite notably. If things are as they sound to me and
> your girlfriend is like mine (suffering from bipolar type 2 and/or
> borderline personality disorder) there is very little you can do. You
> can support her through her negative times and slowly get her to
> realize she is worth so much more / not responsible for problems that
> have nothing to do with her or are not her fault - and endure.
> Medications help very little, but Tegretol (carbamazapine) has proven
> to be the most useful (as a mood stabilizer.)
>
> It will take a long time and you will have to endure quite a bit.
> Don't take it personally - it isn't as it seems, it is likely
> childlike behavior she never was able to grow out of due to lifelong
> abuse. But if the good times are great and you truly care for her, it
> really is worth the effort. I love my wife with all my heart and
> continue to support her when needed without hesitation, despite the
> hugely improved situation rarely requiring any intervention. It was
> all well worth it.
>
> However again this is my situation and does not necessarily have
> parallels to yours as I have guessed it does.
>
> All the best to both of you.
>
moods and that she does not deserve me. Also she wants me to leave her
alone for a while and not bother her when she's in this kind of
state.And I really think she becomes completely irrational
when her mood swings like this.Me being on the contrary very
rational,it's very difficult to understand irrationality.
Also I'm extremely sensitive and really suffer when she wants me to
leave her alone.But I on the contrary want to reassure her or help her
out of it and it gets worse and worse.She enters a state of blunted
affect with a kind of expressionless thousand yards gaze.
It's horrible and I feel so guilty and desolate.
This affects me deeply.
Anyway I'm trying to find a way how not to trigger those kinds of mood
swings in her,
but it seems difficult.She's extremely offendable.
By the way I'm really grateful to anyone of you about sharing your
opinion with me,
I think you are really helping me understand and get over our
problems.
I'll have to find the right moment to share your comments with her
(she's does not read English) I only fear it won't trigger again
something.
era...@gmail.com
fortified with iron/bronze/tin/gold ---- first start with rusted iron
but put it in urine.
that rusted iron urine is not for massage // wash with fresh water//
and apply coconut oil to hair.
for massage it is unfortified urine --- for drinking it is fortified
urine full of the chemicals.
and ask her to drink her urine at home by hand so that she
automatically learns how much to throw out how much to retain.
Erach
Rowland McDonnell
Emotion is a form of rationality that doesn't obey intellectual rules of
logic and analysis. What's rational about it? If you look at people
who follow their emotional instinct, you'll notice that a lot of them
live happy, successful lives: what's rational about it is that *it
works* - at least, for some things. You can't build a moon rocket that
way, but you can work with people that way.
Apply your mind to thinking about that until you get it. It's a
different world, a different world-view, to that which you are used to.
But it's real and it's comprehensible if you can bend your mind enough
to understand.
> Also I'm extremely sensitive and really suffer when she wants me to
> leave her alone.But I on the contrary want to reassure her or help her
> out of it and it gets worse and worse.
Which means that you are doing the wrong things. You need to learn to
do better, somehow.
>She enters a state of blunted
> affect with a kind of expressionless thousand yards gaze.
> It's horrible and I feel so guilty and desolate.
> This affects me deeply.
That's a good sign. But you know, while this bad stuff *might* be
partly your fault, it might not.
> Anyway I'm trying to find a way how not to trigger those kinds of mood
> swings in her,
> but it seems difficult.She's extremely offendable.
Whatever's the cause, there's a big problem and a real problem.
I think that your girlfriend has something wrong with her. I don't know
what the cause is, or what might be done about it.
I think that she needs some sort of special help. I think that you
could do with some help to learn how to help her.
Getting her to the help needed is likely to be difficult. There will be
lots of problems. It's likely to be difficult to persuade her to seek
help at all.
A good place to start might well be something like this organization -
is there anything like this in Russia?
(the idea is that you go along to deal with a problem that the pair of
you have - and if (as many here suspect) the big problem is that your
girlfriend has a specific mental health problem, they'll probably notice
and suggest what's likely to be more help than what they can do. As an
approach, it's less unlikely to be useless than most others I can think
of.)
> By the way I'm really grateful to anyone of you about sharing your
> opinion with me,
> I think you are really helping me understand and get over our
> problems.
> I'll have to find the right moment to share your comments with her
> (she's does not read English) I only fear it won't trigger again
> something.
If you spend your time worrying about triggering something, you'll end
up not doing the things that need doing.
Look at it like this: if you take no special action, your girlfriend
will have bad episodes anyway, yes? But if you take some action to try
to help her and - eventually - hit on something that *does* help her,
that will end up reducing the frequency of the bad episodes, perhaps
even get rid of them.
So why not run the risk of triggering a bad episode? I think it's worth
doing, given the likely gain to your girlfriend in the long run.
M.Butzin
<bra...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:d4a4cd24-49ba-4b3c...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
she maybe homesick, a lot of Orientals get that, as well as Russian girls.
My wife who is Czech speaks and reads English really great and has worked
for years, but at this late stage of our lives she has gotten homesick and
wants to return "home". We used to live in the country and my mother in law
went nuts her complaint was it's too quiet!
Linda
M.Butzin
"Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:c63d7680-a28b-4cec...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> PMS can be easily relieved by Vitamin B plus 100...
>
Linda
> "Linda" <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c63d7680-a28b-4cec...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...> PMS can be easily relieved by Vitamin B plus 100...
>
> Is that the "truck load" dose?
:-)
A daily dose of Vitamin B-100 Complex will suffice.
bra...@mail.ru
> > Also I'm extremely sensitive and really suffer when she wants me to
> > leave her alone.But I on the contrary want to reassure her or help her
> > out of it and it gets worse and worse.
>
> Which means that you are doing the wrong things. Â You need to learn to
> do better, somehow.
I know now and will do better I hope
> >She enters a state of blunted
> > affect with a kind of expressionless thousand yards gaze.
> > It's horrible and I feel so guilty and desolate.
> > This affects me deeply.
>
> That's a good sign. Â But you know, while this bad stuff *might* be
> partly your fault, it might not.
Of course it is partly my fault,I acknowledge that and feel
responsible about.
> > Anyway I'm trying to find a way how not to trigger those kinds of mood
> > swings in her,
> > but it seems difficult.She's extremely offendable.
>
> Whatever's the cause, there's a big problem and a real problem.
>
> I think that your girlfriend has something wrong with her. Â I don't know
> what the cause is, or what might be done about it.
>
> I think that she needs some sort of special help. Â I think that you
> could do with some help to learn how to help her.
That's why I started this discussion here.I'm trying to understand and
will try to improve and do the right things.
> Getting her to the help needed is likely to be difficult. Â There will be
> lots of problems. Â It's likely to be difficult to persuade her to seek
> help at all.
I will start explaining her what I've learnt here and through some
readings I've done around the last
couple of days.
> A good place to start might well be something like this organization -
> is there anything like this in Russia?
>
> <http://www.relate.org.uk/>
For the time being she lives in Russia and comes to see me every 2
weeks
and stays half a month in Paris,where I live.She can't quit her job
right away.
So we'll try to sort out the problem ourselves.
> > By the way I'm really grateful to anyone of you about sharing your
> > opinion with me,
> > I think you are really helping me understand and get over our
> > problems.
> > I'll have to find the right moment to share your comments with her
> > (she's does not read English) I only fear it won't trigger again
> > something.
>
> If you spend your time worrying about triggering something, you'll end
> up not doing the things that need doing.
>
> Look at it like this: if you take no special action, your girlfriend
> will have bad episodes anyway, yes? Â But if you take some action to try
> to help her and - eventually - hit on something that *does* help her,
> that will end up reducing the frequency of the bad episodes, perhaps
> even get rid of them.
>
> So why not run the risk of triggering a bad episode? Â I think it's worth
> doing, given the likely gain to your girlfriend in the long run.
>
> Rowland.
>
Of course I'll do it.Even if I'm scared,I'm not the kind of person to
give up in front of difficulties.
I'm really thankful for your support and kind words...
I'm beginning to understand a lot about her/our problem.
Reading through internet and other documented sources...
Nom dePlume
news:c90bd534-b00f-478e...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
Of course I'll do it.Even if I'm scared,I'm not the kind of person to
give up in front of difficulties.
I'm really thankful for your support and kind words...
I'm beginning to understand a lot about her/our problem.
Reading through internet and other documented sources...
===
I don't see you saying anything about finding medical care for her. Is this
something you are going to try to do? Several people here, including me,
have suggested it, and I really think it is important.
Linda
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Your gal pal has thyroid disease, a grave and complex general medical
condition.
Because your gal pal's symptoms are better attributed to her thyroid
disease the DSM explicitly prohibits physicians from diagnosing your
gal pal with any of the mental disorders which the sleazy bastards
desiring to profit from your ignorance have suggested you slam your
gal pal with.
FYI...there exists an excellent reason why the DSM prohibits
physicians from diagnosing mental disorders in individuals with
thyroid disease.
To wit: Psychotropic drugs WORSEN the psych symptoms of individuals
with thyroid disease.
The waxing and waning nature of your gal pals symptoms suggest one of
the following:
A} the symptoms of her thyroid disease are being compounded by a
vitamin B deficiency inciting PMS----which a daily dose of Vitamin
B-100 Complex will easily resolve
B) her thyroid condition isn't hyperthyroidism but waxing and waning
Hashimoto's, Graves, or one of the other forms of thyroid disease
compounded by an autoimmune response.
If your gal pal has one of the thyroid diseases compounded by an
autoimmune response, and, she were a male, the standard treatment
would be a thyroidectomy plus thyroid hormone replacement therapy.
However, because your gal pal is a female she's SOOL or shit out of
luck because the corrupt mispractitioners of general medicine think
it's perfectly OK for them to consign females with thyroid diseases
coupled with an autoimmune response to a miserable existence by the
mispractitioners of medicine proclaiming thyroid hormone replacement
therapy THE standard treatment for thyroid disease in females.
In any event, if you aren't able or willing to accept the reality
that your gal pal thyroid disease is a grave and complex MEDICAL
disease which corrupt mispractitioners of medicine proffer sub-
standard treatment for merely because she's a female, then, get the
hell out of her life so she can find someone who is willing to accept
the reality of her grave and complex general MEDICAL condition and
make the necessary allowances until she locates a practitioner of
medicine willing to provide adequate treatment for her grave and
complex thyroid condition.
Rowland McDonnell
> > > Also I'm extremely sensitive and really suffer when she wants me to
> > > leave her alone.But I on the contrary want to reassure her or help her
> > > out of it and it gets worse and worse.
> >
> > Which means that you are doing the wrong things. You need to learn to
> > do better, somehow.
>
> I know now and will do better I hope
>
>
> > >She enters a state of blunted
> > > affect with a kind of expressionless thousand yards gaze.
> > > It's horrible and I feel so guilty and desolate.
> > > This affects me deeply.
> >
> > That's a good sign. But you know, while this bad stuff *might* be
> > partly your fault, it might not.
>
> Of course it is partly my fault,I acknowledge that and feel
> responsible about.
If the problem is due to a disorder of the thyroid gland - and it
/might/ be - then it's not your fault at all. There are all sorts of
other possibilities.
What you report could be the result of a traumatic childhood, it could
be the result of a phyiscal medical disorder such as a thyroid problem,
it could be the signs of depression brought on by her `life situation',
it could be the signs of bipolar disorder/manic depression caused by
some unidentified physical pathology.
There's just no way to tell from a written description such as yours.
That's why people keep telling you that she needs medical attention. It
is *NOT* certain that your girlfriend has a thyroid disorder - but she
might have. No-one can be sure of that without a blood test.
> > > Anyway I'm trying to find a way how not to trigger those kinds of mood
> > > swings in her,
> > > but it seems difficult.She's extremely offendable.
> >
> > Whatever's the cause, there's a big problem and a real problem.
> >
> > I think that your girlfriend has something wrong with her. I don't know
> > what the cause is, or what might be done about it.
> >
> > I think that she needs some sort of special help. I think that you
> > could do with some help to learn how to help her.
>
> That's why I started this discussion here.I'm trying to understand and
> will try to improve and do the right things.
The help she needs *MIGHT* be something that you cannot provide. That's
why you really do need to get her given some sort of professional
examination.
I am not very confident that the professional medical people are very
good at dealing with depression and similar problems, and I've seen the
problems caused by drugs they sometimes prescribe for `serious'
problems. I don't trust 'em handing out psychotropic drugs, but I do
trust them to hand out drugs to deal with physical problems - and *IF*
this is a problem of that sort, your girlfriend really does needs a
doctor - given the problems, I'd say `urgently'.
[snip]
> > A good place to start might well be something like this organization -
> > is there anything like this in Russia?
> >
> > <http://www.relate.org.uk/>
>
> For the time being she lives in Russia and comes to see me every 2
> weeks
> and stays half a month in Paris,where I live.She can't quit her job
> right away.
> So we'll try to sort out the problem ourselves.
That's not a good idea. The problem might be something that you can't
sort out yourselves, such as a thyroid disorder. It might be a mental
health problem of the sort that needs a solution that you cannot
provide.
You really do need to get her to see someone with specialist training
who is capable of making a good judgement on whether the problem is
purely psychological - in which case you and her might as well try to
solve it on your own, on the grounds that you're probably no worse at
that than the professionals. Or to see whether the problem is
`something else'.
There's no point in you trying to solve this with discussion if - IF! -
it turns out that your girlfriend needs drugs to help with a
malfunctioning thyroid gland.
Until she's given a proper checkup, you won't know.
That's why I suggested contacting the local equivalent of Relate - they
should be able to tell if the problem is one that needs to be looked at
by a doctor.
It seems to me that your girlfriend is more likely to be willing to
visit a doctor for a checkup if she's told she needs to by a
professional of some sort rather than by you.
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I don't see you saying anything about finding medical care for her. Is this
> something you are going to try to do? Several people here, including me,
> have suggested it, and I really think it is important.
It occurs to me that it might prove rather difficult to get her along to
see a medical practitioner for this particular problem.
And there is always the matter of paying for the consultation.
I spy your email address: me...@mentalmeds.org
Yes, well, I'm not quite as keen on psychotropic drugs as some - I've
seen the harm that they often do and experienced it myself.
Psychotropic drugs handed out to those with mental health problem are
often used simply to turn the patient into a cabbage, or at least
someone who is totally dependent on support from others.
The medical professionals don't give a damn about the side effects of
these drugs when giving them to people with mental health problems, and
the side effects are so common in some cases as to count as `part of the
standard drug action'.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> Your gal pal has thyroid disease, a grave and complex general medical
> condition.
Amazing that you feel confident in making that medical diagnosis. I've
never met a qualified medical practitioner who had the confidence to
make that particular medical diagnosis without doing a blood test first.
How did you manage it? Was it some form of ESP? Divine guidance?
[snip]
> In any event, if you aren't able or willing to accept the reality
> that your gal pal thyroid disease is a grave and complex MEDICAL
> disease which corrupt mispractitioners of medicine proffer sub-
> standard treatment for merely because she's a female, then, get the
> hell out of her life so she can find someone who is willing to accept
> the reality of her grave and complex general MEDICAL condition and
> make the necessary allowances until she locates a practitioner of
> medicine willing to provide adequate treatment for her grave and
> complex thyroid condition.
And if anyone here believes that it's possible to distinguish between a
thyroid problem and depression (or other non-thyroid cause) just on a
written description and without a blood test, would they be interested
in buying the Brooklyn Bridge from me?
Nom dePlume
news:1iok81a.1eqk25lgrvsw6N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet...
> Nom dePlume <me...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I don't see you saying anything about finding medical care for her. Is
>> this
>> something you are going to try to do? Several people here, including me,
>> have suggested it, and I really think it is important.
>
> It occurs to me that it might prove rather difficult to get her along to
> see a medical practitioner for this particular problem.
>
> And there is always the matter of paying for the consultation.
Both are possible problems, but they are problems that will have to be
faced, if self-help efforts fail, as they appear to have done.
> I spy your email address: me...@mentalmeds.org
>
> Yes, well, I'm not quite as keen on psychotropic drugs as some - I've
> seen the harm that they often do and experienced it myself.
> Psychotropic drugs handed out to those with mental health problem are
> often used simply to turn the patient into a cabbage, or at least
> someone who is totally dependent on support from others.
I said "medical care," not "psychotropic drugs." Many things could cause the
symptoms Brannik describes.message on this topic listed a variety of
possible illnesses, which is why I recommended the she investigate endocrine
and psychiatric disorders.
> The medical professionals don't give a damn about the side effects of
> these drugs when giving them to people with mental health problems, and
> the side effects are so common in some cases as to count as `part of the
> standard drug action'.
There are good doctors and bad doctors. Some do as you say, and some do not.
My personal experience is quite different from what you describe. If your
experience is as you've described, then I am sorry it was that way for you.
However, generalizations from the personal to the universal are unreliable,
and there are medical professionals who do care about side effects and
effectiveness. I hope that Brannik and his girlfriend have better luck.
(Having said that, I know nothing about the state of medical care where he
lives.)
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Nom dePlume <me...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> I don't see you saying anything about finding medical care for her. Is
> >> this
> >> something you are going to try to do? Several people here, including me,
> >> have suggested it, and I really think it is important.
> >
> > It occurs to me that it might prove rather difficult to get her along to
> > see a medical practitioner for this particular problem.
> >
> > And there is always the matter of paying for the consultation.
>
> Both are possible problems, but they are problems that will have to be
> faced, if self-help efforts fail, as they appear to have done.
Self-help methods have not yet been tried properly and are easier to
access than anything else.
On the other hand, if the problem is due to a dodgy thyroid gland,
self-help can't help at all.
> > I spy your email address: me...@mentalmeds.org
> >
> > Yes, well, I'm not quite as keen on psychotropic drugs as some - I've
> > seen the harm that they often do and experienced it myself.
> > Psychotropic drugs handed out to those with mental health problem are
> > often used simply to turn the patient into a cabbage, or at least
> > someone who is totally dependent on support from others.
>
> I said "medical care," not "psychotropic drugs."
I know. But your email address `me...@mentalmeds.org' implies that
you're most keen on drugs.
> Many things could cause the
> symptoms Brannik describes.message on this topic listed a variety of
> possible illnesses, which is why I recommended the she investigate endocrine
> and psychiatric disorders.
I don't recommend that the medical experts look at anything other than
what they think is the right thing to look at and I'd suggest that you
don't either. Find someone competent, and let them figure it out.
After all, what can we really tell from a few news posts *about* this
woman?
> > The medical professionals don't give a damn about the side effects of
> > these drugs when giving them to people with mental health problems, and
> > the side effects are so common in some cases as to count as `part of the
> > standard drug action'.
>
> There are good doctors and bad doctors. Some do as you say, and some do not.
Almost all of them - in my experience of what they've done to me and
others I have known - have behaved as I describe.
I've never met a doctor or shrink who gave a damn about side effects
caused by psychotropic drugs.
> My personal experience is quite different from what you describe. If your
> experience is as you've described, then I am sorry it was that way for you.
> However, generalizations from the personal to the universal are unreliable,
> and there are medical professionals who do care about side effects
I've never met a doctor or a shrink who gave a damn about side effect
issues caused by psychotropic drugs.
> and
> effectiveness. I hope that Brannik and his girlfriend have better luck.
> (Having said that, I know nothing about the state of medical care where he
> lives.)
French state medical care is generally pretty damned good. French
mental health care is pretty damned bad from what I have heard although
I have absolutely no direct information from anyone who's been subjected
to it. I have heard the horror stories about French mental health
`care' being used as a dumping ground for unwanted members of society -
just a means of throwing awkward people away and keeping them drugged
senseless so they can't do anything about it.
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your gal pal has thyroid disease, Â a grave and complex general medical
> > condition.
>
> Amazing that you feel confident in making that medical diagnosis.
I beg your pardon?
From: bran...@mail.ru
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
"I have to add that she has a hypethyroidism."
>
> > In any event, Â if you aren't able or willing to accept the reality
> > that your gal pal thyroid disease is a grave and complex MEDICAL
> > disease which corrupt mispractitioners of medicine proffer sub-
> > standard treatment for merely because she's a female, Â then, Â get the
> > hell out of her life so she can find someone who is willing to accept
> > the reality of her grave and complex general MEDICAL condition and
> > make the necessary allowances until she locates a practitioner of
> > medicine willing to provide adequate treatment for her grave and
> > complex thyroid condition.
>
> And if anyone here believes that it's possible to distinguish between a
> thyroid problem and depression (or other non-thyroid cause) just on a
> written description and without a blood test, would they be interested
> in buying the Brooklyn Bridge from me?
I beg your pardon?
Bran explictly stated his gal pal has hyperthyroidism.
All you sleazy bastards who profit each time you encourage some cretin
to have yet another innocent soul subjected to psychiatric abuse CHOSE
to conveniently ignore the fact that Bran's gal pal has a grave and
complex general medical condition which ALL the symptoms Bran
delieniated are better attributable to; therefore, are symptoms which
the DSM explicitly prohibits physicians from diagnosing and treating
AS IF they were symptoms of a mental disorder.
But, don't any of you sleazy bastards let the FACTS to stand in the
way of your effort to profit off an innocent gal's misery!
Perhaps, the next time that gal's thyroid condition waxes her into a
hyperthyroid state, then, a thyroid storm, her thyroid storm will
be followed by a permanent Coma or death instead of the semi-comatose
states she's currently enduring, just so you sleazy bastards can
throw Bran a super dooper self-pity party for his self-centered self!
Alternatively, perhaps Bran will incite his gal pal to suicide by
browbeating the gal to dismiss the REALITY of her grave and complex
thyroid condition, and instead, pretend the symptoms of her thyroid
disease are symptoms of a non-existing mental disorder, so all you
sleazy bastards can throw Bran the super doozy self-pity party he
desperately seeks.
nep...@gmail.com
McDonnell) wrote:
>                       Sorry - the spam got to mehttp://www.mag-uk.org              http://www.bmf.co.uk
> UK biker? Â Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are going to need to decide right now whether you can live with
her "condition" or not. It won't go away. It will take a lot of time
and a lot of hard work to make it minimal. Listen, it has nothing to
do with you (if anything, it is usually a sign of how much she cares
about you!), stop taking it so personally. I know that might be hard
to do, and if you have trouble having some alone time while she is in
a bad mood you might not be in the best situation.
I want to tell you to do it and all will be well, but that is not
accurate. If you don't love this girl and are not willing to deal with
some potentially really bad episodes with no guarantees of success it
will just end badly. I feel bad for her, she will be left with no one
again. I'd say have her drop me an email and visit the board (this is
my second visit), but I don't speak her language.
Really, if you do love her and want to be with her maybe it would be
better for you to get the support from people like us and pass on the
energy to her. Just please as I have already shared with you don't
take things at face value.
(You SHOULD try not to trigger an episode. You should NOT walk on
eggshells to do so.)
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> If the problem is due to a disorder of the thyroid gland - and it
> /might/ be - then it's not your fault at all. Â
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Bran explicitly stated his gal pal has a thyroid condition.
If Bran wasn't so hell bent on PERSECUTING his gal pal for her having
a grave and complex medical condition, then, Bran would have
subscribed to a forum chartered to discuss thyroid disease.
But, Bran is hell bent on PERSECUTING his gal pal for having a grave
and complex medical condtion, therefore, Bran subscribed to a slew
of mental health newsgroups rather than a thyroid newsgroup because
Bran was certain the mental health forums would be chock full of
sleazy bastards who would support and encourage Bran's desire to
persecute/prosecute his gal pal for non-existing mental disorders.
Whilst Bran may or may not be partially responsible for his gal pals
thyroid condition (FYI...IF the gal pal has an autoimmune thyroid
disease, then, it's probably Hashimoto's and approximately 60% of
cases of Hashimoto's are caused by mutant *male* fetal cells
insinuating themselves in a females thyroid gland, compliments of
Bran or some other male), Bran is most definitely responsible for his
A)unwillingness to accept his gal pal's grave and complex condition,
and, B) his effecting to exacerbate her condition by falsely accusing
his gal pal of having non-existing mental disorders, which, there
exists no objective test for ergo are also impossible to defend
oneself against once ACCUSED.
In Bran's posts, Bran cycling through all three roles (Rescuer,
Persecutor, Victim) in the Karpman Drama Triangle revealed his
ulterior motive for INVALIDATING his gal pal's grave and complex
medical condition and falsely accusing her of mental disorder is to
set her up in psychopathic zero sum games where one or both of them
wind up in prison, an insane asylum or dead...preferably the gal pal.
People with grave and complex thyroid conditions need psychopathic
zero sum game players like Bran in their life like they need a hole in
their head.
If Bran isn't willing to acknowledge his gal pals grave and complex
condition, then, he needs to get the hell out of her life so she can
mate with someone who is willing to accept her grave and complex
thyroid condtion, and, make necessary allowances until adequate
treatment is provided her.
In any event, the semi-comatose state which follows the thyroid storm
could easily worsen to include a coma or even death ....ergo there may
be some urgency wrt the gal pal being proffered more adequate
treatment for her thyroid condition by an ENDOCRINOLOGIST.
(Not that any of you sleazy bastards care since the treatments
proffered by endocrinologists don't fatten up your civil service
pensions and 401K's the way unnecessary, fraudulent, and, more
often then not, death inducing psychiatric treatments do.)
bra...@mail.ru
May one of you tell me how to describe it other way to French
pharmacists?
Rowland McDonnell
I don't know, but this information might help. I am not any sort of
medical person. I found the links below by doing a Web search. I
cannot vouch for the reliablity of any of the information I am quoting
here.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins>
"The B vitamins are eight water-soluble vitamins that play important
roles in cell metabolism. Historically, the B vitamins were once thought
to be a single vitamin, referred to as vitamin B (much like how people
refer to vitamin C or vitamin D). Later research showed that they are
chemically distinct vitamins that often coexist in the same foods.
Supplements containing all eight are generally referred to as a vitamin
B complex. Individual B vitamin supplements are referred to by the
specific name of each vitamin (e.g. B1, B2, B3 etc )."
<http://www.auravita.com/products/aura/LAMB10070.asp>
"Lamberts Vitamin B-100 Complex
Typically per tablet:
Thiamin (Vitamin B1) 100mg
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) 100mg
Niacin (as Nicotinamide) 100mg
Vitamin B6 100mg
Folic Acid 100ç—¢
Vitamin B12 100ç—¢
Biotin 0.1mg
Pantothenic Acid 100mg
Choline 100mg
Inositol 100mg
PABA 30mg
Tableted with:
Microcrystalline Cellulose, Dicalcium Phosphate, Crosslinked Sodium
Carboxymethylcellulose, Tablet Coating (Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose,
Glycerin), Silicon Dioxide, Acacia, Stearic Acid, Magnesium Stearate.
Disintegration time: Less than 1 hour."
<http://www.olympianlabs.com/html/product/default.aspx?catID=16&prodID=3
32>
"We've all stared at the cereal box label during breakfast and wondered
what words like riboflavin, folic acid and pyridoxine mean. And how many
times have we heard mom say, "eat your greens"? Turns out that what mom
was talking about is closely related to your morning reading material
and they both involve vitamin B.
The B-complex vitamins are actually a group of eight vitamins that
include Thiamine (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Niacin (B3), Pyridoxine (B6),
Folic Acid (B9), Cyancobalamin (B12), Panthothenic Acid and Biotin.
These vitamins are essential for the breakdown of carbohydrates into
glucose (this provides energy for the body), the breakdown of fats and
proteins (which aids in the normal functioning of the nervous system),
muscle tone in the stomach and intestinal tract, and maintaining healthy
skin, hair, eyes, mouth and liver. Doctors and nutritionists agree that
taking the B-complex vitamins, as a group is essential for overall
health. The b-complex vitamins together are a powerful tool in
maintaining overall health. Individually, they each have important roles
and specific targets to your body.
*Vitamin B1 (Thiamine) enhances circulation and assists in blood
formation, carbohydrate metabolism and the production of hydrochloric
acid, which is important for proper digestion. Thiamine also optimizes
cognitive activity and brain function and has a positive effect on
energy, growth, appetite and learning capacity. It is essential for
maintaining muscle tone of the intestines, stomach and heart.
*Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin) is crucial in the production of energy for the
body. Riboflavin helps protect against free radical damage and aids in
the formation of antibodies and red blood cells. Vitamin B2 has
antioxidant qualities and is needed to maintain good vision, skin, nail
and hair health.
*Vitamin B3 (Inositol Hexanicotinate, a form of Niacin) supports proper
circulation, healthy skin and aids in the functioning of the central
nervous system. Because of its role in supporting higher brain functions
and cognition, Vitamin B3 has been shown to play an important role in
the treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia. Adequate levels of
Vitamin B3 are vital for the proper synthesis of insulin and the sex
hormones.
*Vitamin B5 (Calcium Pantothenate) promotes normal growth and
development aids in release of energy from foods and helps synthesis of
numerous body materials. Also been shown to stimulate wound healing,
alleviate stress, aid allergies, treat fatigue and retard aging.
*Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine) is necessary for the synthesis and breakdown of
amino acids, the building blocks of protein. It has been found to aid in
the formation of antibodies, maintain the central nervous system, and
help diminish signs of PMS. Vitamin B6 also promotes healthy skin,
reduces muscle spasms, leg cramps, hand numbness and nausea.
*Vitamin B9 (Folic Acid) is important to pregnant women for protection
against neural tube defects in their unborn children. Vitamin B9, in
combination with B12 and Vitamin C is necessary for the breakdown of
proteins and the formation of hemoglobin, a compound in red blood cells
that transports oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body. Women on
birth control pills and all women of childbearing age as well as people
suffering from heart disease and those taking daily antibiotics should
be taking at least 400mg of folic acid a day.
*Vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamin) is crucial in preventing anemia. It aids
Folic Acid in regulating the formation of red blood cells and helps in
the body's utilization of iron stores. Vitamin B12 also acts to prevent
nerve damage, maintains fertility, promotes normal growth and
development of the fatty sheathes that cover and protect nerve endings.
It has also been linked to the production of neurotransmitters that
assist memory and learning.
*d-Biotin is required, like all the B-complex vitamins, for fat and
protein metabolism and in maintaining the effectiveness of immunity and
gene function. Biotin deficiency is most common in the elderly and
diabetics.
For added health benefits, we've added Insotol, PABA, and Choline
Bitartrate. Insotol has been shown to help prevent hardening of the
arteries and protects the heart. PABA is necessary for the metabolism of
amino acids and in the formulation of blood. Choline Bitartrate is
necessary for normal nerve and brain function."
And if you *still* can't find the stuff in France, jump on a Eurostar
train to London and buy some there. ;-)
However, if (as you report), your girlfriend has a problem with her
thyroid gland, that really does need the attention of a doctor.
bra...@mail.ru
problems with different medication and treatments and her case
worsened.
So she does not want to go through all this again.
Once a year she goes to sanatorium and is doing some light yoga often.
And her health is better now.
She could take the vitamins , but no other drugs.
She also takes something from www.boots.com about the immune
system,but I forgot the name.
On 15 Окт, 13:22, real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland
McDonnell) wrote:
> <bran...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > There is no such thing as Vitamin B-100 Complex in France.
> > May one of you tell me how to describe it other way to French
> > pharmacists?
>
> I don't know, but this information might help. I am not any sort of
> medicalperson. I found the links below by doing a Web search. I
> cannot vouch for the reliablity of any of the information I am quoting
> here.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins>
>
> "The B vitamins are eight water-soluble vitamins that play important
> roles in cell metabolism. Historically, the B vitamins were once thought
> to be a single vitamin, referred to as vitamin B (much like how people
> refer to vitamin C or vitamin D). Later research showed that they are
> chemically distinct vitamins that often coexist in the same foods.
> Supplements containing all eight are generally referred to as a vitamin
> B complex. Individual B vitamin supplements are referred to by the
> specific name of each vitamin (e.g. B1, B2, B3 etc )."
>
> <http://www.auravita.com/products/aura/LAMB10070.asp>
>
> "Lamberts Vitamin B-100 Complex
>
> Typically per tablet:
> Thiamin (Vitamin B1) 100mg
> Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) 100mg
> Niacin (as Nicotinamide) 100mg
> Vitamin B6 100mg
> Folic Acid 100μg
> Vitamin B12 100μg
> Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonn...@dog.physics.org
> Sorry - the spam got to mehttp://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
Linda
Vitamin B Complex is also known as Vitamin B Compound
It's also mass marketed under brand names like "Vigranon B®".
The "100" denotes it's strength (Vitamin B-50 Complex, Vitamin B-100
Complex).
Rowland McDonnell
What does the `100' actually *mean*? I couldn't find anything which
explained that. It seems like a non-scientific marketing term to me.
Rowland McDonnell
> She'd been treated for hyperthyroidism years ago and she'd had lots of
> problems with different medication and treatments and her case
> worsened.
Oh dear.
> So she does not want to go through all this again.
That makes sense. Where did she get the treatment? A second opinion
might come up with a different idea. French medical care is generally
very good.
> Once a year she goes to sanatorium and is doing some light yoga often.
> And her health is better now.
> She could take the vitamins , but no other drugs.
Okay. Are you are /no/ other drugs at all, for anything? Antibiotic
drugs often save lives.
> She also takes something from www.boots.com about the immune
> system,but I forgot the name.
Righto.
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> Linda <indomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bran...@mail.ru wrote:
>> > There is no such thing as Vitamin B-100 Complex in France.
>> > May one of you tell me how to describe it other way to French
>> > pharmacists?
>>
>> Vitamin B Complex is also known as Vitamin B Compound
>>
>> It's also mass marketed under brand names like "Vigranon B®".
>>
>> The "100" denotes it's strength (Vitamin B-50 Complex, Vitamin B-100
>> Complex).
>
> What does the `100' actually *mean*? I couldn't find anything which
> explained that. It seems like a non-scientific marketing term to me.
>
> Rowland.
The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg, as
appropriate.
Lar
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Linda <indomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> bran...@mail.ru wrote:
> >> > There is no such thing as Vitamin B-100 Complex in France.
> >> > May one of you tell me how to describe it other way to French
> >> > pharmacists?
> >>
> >> Vitamin B Complex is also known as Vitamin B Compound
> >>
> >> It's also mass marketed under brand names like "Vigranon B®".
> >>
> >> The "100" denotes it's strength (Vitamin B-50 Complex, Vitamin B-100
> >> Complex).
> >
> > What does the `100' actually *mean*? I couldn't find anything which
> > explained that. It seems like a non-scientific marketing term to me.
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg, as
> appropriate.
Oh yes! Quite right.
That seems a bit dubious to me - nice round numbers like that cannot
possibly be the right amount for a person.
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg, as
>> appropriate.
>
> Oh yes! Quite right.
>
> That seems a bit dubious to me - nice round numbers like that cannot
> possibly be the right amount for a person.
>
> Rowland.
Round numbers, square numbers, it doesn't much matter. The big thing is that
they are all made available, together, and in doses that will quickly
remediate any deficiency state.
You wouldn't take a B-100 daily, for the rest of your life. But it is quite
appropriate for correcting deficiency states. As the B-vitamins work
together in concert, it is really important to supply them simultaneously,
even if not all are in deficiency. Demand for one increases demand for
others. Supply leads directly to demand.
I've studied nutrition in great detail, and I cannot conceive of any adverse
outcome from using such a product, except for e.g. flushing if the product
contains niacin rather than niacinamide. And, your urine will stain deep
yellow as B-2 is excreted.
I'd be happy to answer an questions you might have.
Lar
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg, as
> >> appropriate.
> >
> > Oh yes! Quite right.
> >
> > That seems a bit dubious to me - nice round numbers like that cannot
> > possibly be the right amount for a person.
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> Round numbers, square numbers, it doesn't much matter.
Of course it doesn't, if you just want to sell the stuff - just so long
as they look impressive enough, they'll sell. But I'm more concerned
about the health effects, and from that point of view the dose - that
is, the numbers - *do* matter.
At what level of dose do toxic effects start to occur from these
chemicals?
And don't tell me that there aren't any. All biologically active
chemicals become toxic at some level of dose. In some cases, that dose
is absurdly high, I'm sure.
> The big thing is that
> they are all made available, together, and in doses that will quickly
> remediate any deficiency state.
And also possibly cause problems with overdosing, or other issues due to
the quantities being inappropriate.
> You wouldn't take a B-100 daily, for the rest of your life.
I know I wouldn't take the stuff at all, unless prescribed by a doctor I
trusted. But some people would take the stuff daily for life.
> But it is quite
> appropriate for correcting deficiency states.
Where are the triple-blind studies that show that it's the best way to
do so, and the triple-blind long term studies on the life-time effects
of using these compounds?
> As the B-vitamins work
> together in concert, it is really important to supply them simultaneously,
> even if not all are in deficiency. Demand for one increases demand for
> others. Supply leads directly to demand.
I'd prefer a more formal explanation. I have a science degree; physics,
admittedly, and my chemistry is very shaky these days, but I'm not
scared of heavy explanations.
> I've studied nutrition in great detail, and I cannot conceive of any adverse
> outcome from using such a product, except for e.g. flushing if the product
> contains niacin rather than niacinamide. And, your urine will stain deep
> yellow as B-2 is excreted.
>
> I'd be happy to answer an questions you might have.
What are the recommended daily doses (just the UK, EU, and USA
recommendations will do) of each of the vitamins, minerals, and other
active components of these compound formulations? How were those
recommendations worked out?
What do the triple blind studies show are the downsides of taking too
much of each of the components?
What do the triple-blind studies show are the long-term effects of
taking this stuff?
Harry Loover
> I'd prefer a more formal explanation. I have a science degree; physics,
> admittedly, and my chemistry is very shaky these days, but I'm not
> scared of heavy explanations.
Just the perfect opportunity to brag about your degrees. Too bad the girls
did so much better than you did. Did you tell them about how they dragged
you from the classroom because of your bizarre antics?
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Larry Hoover <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
An exaggerated sense of self-importance, eh?
B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
vitamins.
B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
vitamins.
Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
evident to those who are not obtuse.
rpautrey2
???????????????????
???????????????????
???????????????????
???????????????????
???????????????????
Rowland McDonnell
Well, let's see: it's cross-posted to:
uk.people.support.depression
alt.support.depression.manic
alt.psychology
sci.med.psychobiology
alt.support.depression.medication
So I think the answer has to be `It's in several `kook' newsgroups, so
of course it is you fool!'
Rowland McDonnell
<surprised> Why the personal insult in response to someone displaying
appropriate scientific scepticism?
> B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
> vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
> vitamins.
>
> B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
> vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
> vitamins.
>
> Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
> evident to those who are not obtuse.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point, which is obscure and appears
to have nothing to do with the queries I raised.
Rowland McBollocks
> <surprised> Why the personal insult in response to someone displaying
> appropriate scientific scepticism?
<typical> You've got to understand Rowland has problems with women, or as
he calls them in his quaint dialect, "lasses." If one displays the
slightest bit of independence or intelligence Rowlie is quickly on the
attack.
>
>> B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
>> vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
>> vitamins.
>>
>> B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
>> vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
>> vitamins.
>>
>> Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
>> evident to those who are not obtuse.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your point, which is obscure and appears
> to have nothing to do with the queries I raised.
Poor Rowlie, ready to be made a fool of by a "lass."
--
" I have a balanced view of women. I can see
the real thing. Unlike you, I don't try to pretend that women are all
nice people. Some women - and you're a classic example - are very
nasty."
Rowland McDonnell - The Mysognist Series - 29 Nov 2007
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
I honestly don't care whether or not you understand my point, etc.
For some unfathomable reason, I do care whether or not readers are
provided factually based information.
Readers were not provided factual based info where you republished the
following statement regarding Vitamin B-100 Complex:
"The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg"
That statement is a misleading/false statement since Vitamin B-100
Complex generally contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 a/k/a Folic
Acid, 100 micrograms of Vitamin B-12 and Biotin, and, 100
milligrams of each of the other B Vitamins.
The point of my post was to "slip in" the fact that Vitamin B-100
Complex contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 aka Folic Acid---not,
100 mg's or 100 mcg's which a previous author had inadvertently misled
readers into falsely believing it contains.
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > Linda <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
> > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
> > > vitamins.
> >
> > > B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
> > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
> > > vitamins.
> >
> > > Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
> > > evident to those who are not obtuse.
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't understand your point, which is obscure and appears
> > to have nothing to do with the queries I raised.
>
> I honestly don't care whether or not you understand my point, etc.
So why are you posting here? Just for personal aggrandisement, or what?
Is it that you enjoy insulting people?
You tell me.
> For some unfathomable reason, I do care whether or not readers are
> provided factually based information.
Me too. I do not understand how it is that posing your question `An
exaggerated sense of self-importance, eh?' in response to me remarking
that I'd prefer a more formal explanation achieves such an outcome.
> Readers were not provided factual based info where you republished the
> following statement regarding Vitamin B-100 Complex:
Ye gods! So show me the facts!
> "The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg"
>
> That statement is a misleading/false statement
... which I correctly attributed to an anonymous author and left in my
post so that others could comment with a view to ensuring more reliable
information.
There's no need for you to get so damned hostile and rude about me doing
the ideal thing.
> since Vitamin B-100
> Complex generally contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 a/k/a Folic
> Acid, 100 micrograms of Vitamin B-12 and Biotin, and, 100
> milligrams of each of the other B Vitamins.
>
> The point of my post was to "slip in" the fact that Vitamin B-100
> Complex contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 aka Folic Acid---not,
> 100 mg's or 100 mcg's which a previous author had inadvertently misled
> readers into falsely believing it contains.
But where is the medical evidence that it is appropriate to consume this
stuff at all?
Where are the test results that demostrate long-term safety?
Where are the test results that demonstrate long-term benefits?
Is there any sound, scientific reason to think that these preparations
are a good idea?
All we've had so far is a vague claim that increased demand for one
component increases demand for another. When I suggested a more formal
explanation would be good, you decided to insult me.
I wouldn't take a compound preparation of this sort, not unless
prescribed by a doctor I trusted. Part of my thinking is based on your
insulting response: there do not appear to be any sound reasons for
thinking that these compound preparations are safe or useful.
Larry Hoover
"Linda" <indomi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2da805c-7582-481b...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Readers were not provided factual based info where you republished the
> following statement regarding Vitamin B-100 Complex:
> "The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg"
> That statement is a misleading/false statement since Vitamin B-100
> Complex generally contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 a/k/a Folic
> Acid, 100 micrograms of Vitamin B-12 and Biotin, and, 100
> milligrams of each of the other B Vitamins.
> The point of my post was to "slip in" the fact that Vitamin B-100
> Complex contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 aka Folic Acid---not,
> 100 mg's or 100 mcg's which a previous author had inadvertently misled
> readers into falsely believing it contains.
Linda, is your view so parochial that you cannot recognize that the bottle
in your hand may not represent the products offered by other manufacturers,
let alone those products available in other countries than the U.S.? Trust
me, your "facts" are not facts at all. In Europe, a product such as we are
discussing is simply not available. In Canada, folic acid is not limited to
400 micrograms per dose. Get a world view, okay?
I answered Rowland's generic question in generic terms. He obviously was
unfamiliar with the concept of the B-100 vitamin complex formulation, and it
would needlessly complicate any explanation to simultaneously attempt to
discuss exceptions and variables. My answer was not meant to be global in
scope, and you should recognize that, if you had any understanding yourself.
Lar
Larry Hoover
On Oct 16, 6:14 pm, real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland
McDonnell) wrote:
> > I'd prefer a more formal explanation.
> An exaggerated sense of self-importance, eh?
What's with the attitude, Linda? Looking in the mirror again?
> B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
> vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
> vitamins.
> B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
> vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
> vitamins.
> Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
> evident to those who are not obtuse.
Again, attitude. What's up with that?
Did you note how the folic acid in your AMERICAN product plateaus at 400
mics? Do you see how your answer depends on country of origin? This is an
international audience, Linda.
Lar
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
I'm not inclined to write a book for you, Rowland. Nor to reinvent the
wheel. You can easily obtain some basic information from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins (follow the hyperlinks to
discussions of individual vitamins), and/or at the Linus Pauling Institute
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins.html , or wherever you
choose. Despite my reluctance to answer questions you could easily answer
for yourself, I will submit the following comments.
> At what level of dose do toxic effects start to occur from these
> chemicals?
With the exception of B12, the B-vitamins are water soluble, so toxicity is
virtually a non-issue at the doses we're discussing. Toxic effects reported
in the literature typically arise from totally absurd intake levels
persisting for absurd lengths of time. And the toxicities are not toxicities
per se, but instead, nutritional stress caused by chronic dosing. There is
no known toxic threshold for B12, despite its tendency for tissue storage.
And B12 isn't really a B-vitamin anyway, but that's another story.
> And don't tell me that there aren't any. All biologically active
> chemicals become toxic at some level of dose. In some cases, that dose
> is absurdly high, I'm sure.
The toxic thresholds for B-vitamins are virtually unidentified. That does
not mean its harmless to swallow a large bottle of tablets daily.....swallow
the contents of a salt-shaker, and you'll likely die, despite the salutatory
effect and absolute safety of sprinkling some on your chips. Inocuous
substance do have toxicity thresholds, as you suggest, but we're dealing
with trivial levels with respect to these vitamins.
> And also possibly cause problems with overdosing, or other issues due to
> the quantities being inappropriate.
The idea behind the provision of the B-complex tablets is that they are a
complex, an interwoven and interdependent biochemical network. The doses are
quite safe, and appropriate.
> I know I wouldn't take the stuff at all, unless prescribed by a doctor I
> trusted. But some people would take the stuff daily for life.
Doctors typically receive less that a half-day of lectures on nutrition, if
I am to believe what I have read on the subject. They are not the
appropriate experts to consult.
> Where are the triple-blind studies that show that it's the best way to
> do so, and the triple-blind long term studies on the life-time effects
> of using these compounds?
Triple blind? What on Earth is that? The long term effects are one of: no
apparent benefit; or, tangible benefits. I would argue that 'no _apparent_
benefit' is actually a benefit nonetheless, but I'll not expand on that
concept today.
> I'd prefer a more formal explanation. I have a science degree; physics,
> admittedly, and my chemistry is very shaky these days, but I'm not
> scared of heavy explanations.
Let's leave those until you learn some of the basics, as at the links I
provided, above.
> What are the recommended daily doses (just the UK, EU, and USA
> recommendations will do) of each of the vitamins, minerals, and other
> active components of these compound formulations? How were those
> recommendations worked out?
The recommended daily doses are political values. They are based on flawed
arguments. You can easily find those recommendations for yourself.
The earliest minimum intake level was called the RDA (recommended daily
allowance). It was defined as that level of intake that prevented OVERT
symptoms of deficiency in 95% of NORMAL, HEALTHY people. In other words, the
level of e.g. vitamin D that prevents osteomalacia and/or rickets in 19 of
20 normal healthy people. Not the optimal intake level, nor the level that
protects all normal healthy people (whomever they might be), nor that level
that protects people who aren't healthy, or aren't normal, but merely the
statistically significant minimum intake for most of those who can get
by.......if they're already normal and healthy.
Definitions have changed a little bit over time, but that same statistical
assumption is still in play. That hasn't changed.
> What do the triple blind studies show are the downsides of taking too
> much of each of the components?
Your urine will be enriched. But, you still need to recognize that in order
for a substance to reach the urine, it must IT MUST first be found in the
blood. Which means it was absorbed, and made available to all the tissues of
the body. Supplements are not unique or special in this regard. Nutrients
absorbed from food are indistinguishable from those obtained from
supplements, and are just as likely to be flushed from the body by the
kidneys. That is the fate of virtually all water soluble chemicals, with the
exception of a very few ions which are the serum electrolytes.
> What do the triple-blind studies show are the long-term effects of
> taking this stuff?
Better health. Certainly, no worse.
> Rowland.
Lar
Linda
> "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I answered Rowland's generic question in generic terms.
I acknowledged as much.
Nonetheless, a compound is not considered to be Vitamin B-100 Complex
unless it contains approximately 400 micrograms Folic Acid a/k/a
Vitamin B-9 and 100 milligrams or 100 micrograms of the other B
Vitamins, generically or otherwise.
Rowland McDonnell
> "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I answered Rowland's generic question in generic terms.
>
> I acknowledged as much.
>
> Nonetheless, a compound is not considered to be Vitamin B-100 Complex
By whom? Where is this standard defined?
> unless it contains approximately 400 micrograms Folic Acid a/k/a
> Vitamin B-9 and 100 milligrams or 100 micrograms of the other B
> Vitamins, generically or otherwise.
Where did you get this definition?
And is there any evidence that consuming this stuff is safe?
hopethr...@gmail.com
> On 3 ïËÔ, 16:08, h...@nospam.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:35:45 -0700 (PDT), bran...@mail.ru wrote:
> > >My girlfriend has a very difficult character.
> > >She is extremely irritable,offendable.
> > >In a split second her mood can change into a deep depression.she
> > >enters a state of stupor (as she says),shock,anger and rage.
> > >She may remain like this for at least the rest of the day or the
> > >evening.
> > >She becomes completely dumb and stares in the void with total dispair.
> > >She seems to be extremely negative to me,cruel,numb.
> > >I can't talk her into any reason.
> > >She rejects any arguments or excuses.And it gets worst and worst.
> > >She's persuaded that she better be alone.And she rejects everything
> > >from me.
> > >There is something sadistic in it (not in a physical but in a mental
> > >way).
> > >I'm crying and imploring her,but always to no avail.
> > >Eventually the next day,she calms down.
> > >And loves me again and says that I'm the most remarkable man she ever
> > >knew or met.
> > >Me, being very diplomatic,patient and extremely cautious about what
> > >may upset her,still it is very difficult
> > >to avoid those disputes.I'm trying not show any opion of mine because
> > >of fear of starting a conflict,but even this irritates her sometimes,
> > >she says,you have no opinion on anything.
> > >Please,I would like to have some sort of advice,opinion or any
> > >diagnosis about her temper or state of mind.
> > >I have to add that she has a hypethyroidism.Does this explain it all?
> > >What I noticed about her, is the total lack of will power and has a
> > >tendency to be easily discouraged or gives up in front of the
> > >slightest difficulty.
> > >But when everything seems ok to her,she is the loveliest and most
> > >caring woman in the world.
> > >Please,help me
>
> > when she is in her good moods is she willing and able to discuss her
> > bad moods objectively? Å¡Have you tried to discuss possible causes with
> > her? Å¡Would she be willing to seek out medical evaluation of her
> > moods? Å¡I would say try to get her to see her doctor. Å¡There may be
> > environmental causes (ie allergies) or certainly could be brain
> > chemistry. Å¡ Has she been like this her whole life or is this a recent
> > developement?
>
> > Hal
>
> Thank you very much for you supportive and kind words.
> She overtly acknowledges that she has those problems and that her
> behaviour is not right.
> She even says that she's kind of psycho or neurotic person.
> She says for example,we'll be together as long as I can stand her.
> She this when she's in a right state,but when she goes beserk she does
> not acknowledge anything,she becomes the total opposite.
> She has been like this her whole life.She is very capricious also.
> She told me that she has been like this with her mum.
> And her mum always tried to obey her and please her.
> But she really loves her mum and is very caring about her.
> She's willing and able to discuss her mood swings,but often says that
> it was my fault
> and I nearly always agree with her because I'm afraid it will begin
> all over again.
> I don't like conflicts and am always trying to avoid them.
> But nevertheless they happen from time to time.
> They happen regularly every one or two weeks,in the best of cases
> there's a 3 weeks span.
> We've known each other for a year.And we are deeply in love with each
> other.
> What kind of doctor should she consult?
> Psychiatrist?
Hello
I have had similar symptoms to your girl friend and they became a lot
worse recently. Most times I cannot tell what triggers them but I do
know that I do blame anyone who is with me at the time. When I am
alone and go through these spells, I have no one to blame so I
meditate and pray and try to think of pleasant things in my life.
I have been seeing a psychologist for a while and she has diagnosed me
with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome with episodes of major
depression. I went to my GP for antidepressants but they made my
condition worse. The psychotherapy helps me a great deal. I also use
writing for therapy. I created a blog and I come to groups like
this. I am on disability at the moment as I cannot work. I am afraid
of closed spaces, and am afraid to leave my bedroom. Every day some
new symptom is exhibited. Now I take it an hour at a time. My
husband is studying my conditions and he is seeking advice as to how
to care for me. Do not despair. She probably if were always normal
would be able to tell you how much she appreciates you standing by
her.
Through despair comes hope. Take care!
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Linda <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > > Linda <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
> > > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
> > > > vitamins.
>
> > > > B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, Â 50 micrograms of
> > > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
> > > > vitamins.
>
> > > > Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
> > > > evident to those who are not obtuse.
>
> > > I'm afraid I don't understand your point, which is obscure and appears
> > > to have nothing to do with the queries I raised.
>
> > I honestly don't care whether or not you understand my point, Â etc.
>
> So why are you posting here?
>Â Just for personal aggrandisement, or what?
> Is it that you enjoy insulting people?
>
> You tell me.
I beg your pardon?
If you CHOSE to feel insulted because I refuse to indulge your
inflated sense of self-importance, then, that's on you.
>
> > For some unfathomable reason, Â I do care whether or not readers are
> > provided factually based information.
>
> Me too. Â I do not understand how it is that posing your question `An
> exaggerated sense of self-importance, Â eh?' Â in response to me remarking
> that I'd prefer a more formal explanation achieves such an outcome.
Because, this thread isn't about YOU.
This thread is about the "Highly Irritable and Angered Person"
If you want to initiate a thread which is about you, initiate your
own gosh thread titled something ala "What Rowland McDonnell Prefers"
> > Readers were not provided factual based info where you republished the
> > following statement regarding Vitamin B-100 Complex:
>
>
> > "The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg"
>
> > That statement is a misleading/false statement
>
> ... which I correctly attributed to an anonymous author and left in my
> post so that others could comment with a view to ensuring more reliable
> information.
>
> There's no need for you to get so damned hostile and rude about me doing
> the ideal thing.
There's no need for you to get so damned hostile and rude in response
to my ideal response to your publishing articles in which you display
your inflated sense of self-importance?
> >Since Vitamin B-100
> > Complex generally contains  400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 a/k/a Folic
> > Acid, Â 100 micrograms of Vitamin B-12 and Biotin, Â and, Â 100
> > milligrams of each of the other B Vitamins.
>
> > The point of my post was to "slip in" the fact that Vitamin B-100
> > Complex contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 aka Folic Acid---not,
> > 100 mg's or 100 mcg's which a previous author had inadvertently misled
> > readers into falsely believing it contains.
>
> But where is the medical evidence that it is appropriate to consume this
> stuff at all?
What is or isn't "appropriate" to consume is up to each and every
individual, not you, nor any other lying, thieving, murdering
gangster with a degree.
> Where are the test results that demostrate long-term safety?
>
> Is there any sound, scientific reason to think that these preparations
> are a good idea?
Since when do test results published by research ho's around the globe
demonstrate anything other than which gangsta's with degrees are
raking in the most moolah from Global Corporations?
>
> All we've....
We???
Where one's assertions have merit one has no need to resort to
employing the "Royal We" to lend one's assertions legitimacy their
assertions doesn't otherwise have.
>
> I wouldn't take a compound preparation of this sort, not unless
> prescribed by a doctor I trusted. Â Part of my thinking is based on your
> insulting response: there do not appear to be any sound reasons for
> thinking that these compound preparations are safe or useful.
This thread isn't about whether or not Rowland McDonnell would consume
Vitamin B-100 Complex, nor is this thread about under which
circumstances Rowland McDonnell might consume Vitamin B-100 Complex,
nor is this thread about whom Rowland McDonnell chooses to trust and/
or consult wrt Vitamin B Compounds, nor is this thread about what
Rowland McDonnell thinks and/or perceives.
This thread is about what the highly irritable and angered female(s)
of child bearing age have and/or would consume to alleviate extreme
irritableness and anger which impairs their normal functioning every
third week or so.
Tens of millions of child bearing age females who become highly
irritable and angered every third week or so take Vitamin B-100
Complex or a similiar compound comprised of B Vitamins.
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > I answered Rowland's generic question in generic terms.
>
> > I acknowledged as much.
>
> > Nonetheless, a compound is not considered to be Vitamin B-100 Complex
>
> By whom? Â
Those who manufacture, sell, and consume it.
> Where is this standard defined?
In all the literature published by those who manufacture, sell, and
consume it.
>
> > unless it contains approximately 400 micrograms Folic Acid a/k/a
> > Vitamin B-9 and 100 milligrams or 100 micrograms of the other B
> > Vitamins, Â generically or otherwise.
>
> Where did you get this definition?
In all the literature published by those who manufacture, sell, and
consume it.
>
> And is there any evidence that consuming this stuff is safe?
Geez Louise!
The B Vitamins are ESSENTIAL vitamins.
Enuff said!
Nom dePlume
news:c176685f-cc32-4b88...@z18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
"Hello
I have had similar symptoms to your girl friend and they became a lot
worse recently. Most times I cannot tell what triggers them but I do
know that I do blame anyone who is with me at the time. When I am
alone and go through these spells, I have no one to blame so I
meditate and pray and try to think of pleasant things in my life.
I have been seeing a psychologist for a while and she has diagnosed me
with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome with episodes of major
depression. I went to my GP for antidepressants but they made my
condition worse. "
Antidepressants, taken with mood stabilizers, often cause deterioration in
mood in people who have Bipolar Disorder. Have you discussed the possibility
of Bipolar Disorder with your doctor? By the way, most GPs are not really
qualified to treat Bipolar Disorder, or even Depression. I'd really
recommend seeing a psychiatrist for further investigation.
--
Nom dePlume, Ph.D.
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Find my book, Medicines for Mental health, and free drug information, at
www.MentalMeds.org
=====
Linda
Her psycho-boy pal is NOT standing by her.
Her psycho-boy pal is invalidating her by denying the reality of her
grave and complex autoimmune and glandular condition(s), and,
instead, seeking AMMO from psychiatric patients (like you) which the
boy pal intends to use to persuade, entreat, convince, coerce and
bully her into acquiesing to his effort to deflect/project his mental
illness on a gal pal which the gal pal's own physicians never slammed
her with.
But, don't any of you psychiatric patients allow the facts to stand
in the way of your projecting your psychitatric conditions on
everyone else.
Malicious Toad
> This thread is about what the highly irritable and angered female(s)
> of child bearing age have and/or would consume to alleviate extreme
> irritableness and anger which impairs their normal functioning every
> third week or so.
>
> Tens of millions of child bearing age females who become highly
> irritable and angered every third week or so take Vitamin B-100
> Complex or a similiar compound comprised of B Vitamins.
I don't know. If you ignore the part about being female, what you say
sounds a lot like Rowland.
--
"You heartless bitch. I hope you die of a horrible wasting disease that
ruins your looks and your bank balance in equal measure."
Rowland McDonnell - Mysogyny 2 - 23 Jan 08
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > Linda <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > > > Linda <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > B-100 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 100 micrograms of
> > > > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 100 milligrams each of all the other B
> > > > > vitamins.
> >
> > > > > B-50 complex offers 400 micrograms of folic acid, 50 micrograms of
> > > > > vitamin B12 and biotin, 50 milligrams of each of all the other B
> > > > > vitamins.
> >
> > > > > Why they are marketed as "B-100 Complex"/"B-50 Complex" is self-
> > > > > evident to those who are not obtuse.
> >
> > > > I'm afraid I don't understand your point, which is obscure and appears
> > > > to have nothing to do with the queries I raised.
> >
> > > I honestly don't care whether or not you understand my point, etc.
> >
> > So why are you posting here?
> > Just for personal aggrandisement, or what?
> > Is it that you enjoy insulting people?
> >
> > You tell me.
>
> I beg your pardon?
>
> If you CHOSE to feel insulted because I refuse to indulge your
> inflated sense of self-importance, then, that's on you.
Huh?
If you think that telling me I've got an exaggerated sense of
self-importance isn't insulting, you were brought up very badly.
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
That's my question. You just hurled personal abuse at me. It's not
about you: it's about that question.
> > > For some unfathomable reason, I do care whether or not readers are
> > > provided factually based information.
> >
> > Me too. I do not understand how it is that posing your question `An
> > exaggerated sense of self-importance, eh?' in response to me remarking
> > that I'd prefer a more formal explanation achieves such an outcome.
>
> Because, this thread isn't about YOU.
This part of the thread was supposed to be about whether or not the
vitamin preparation you proposed is a safe one or not.
You seem to have forgotten what the thread is about: you've turned it
into an attack on me, because I dared question one of your divine
pronouncements.
But:
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
> This thread is about the "Highly Irritable and Angered Person"
Yes indeed.
And you have suggested that the person concerned takes a compound
vitamin preparation which might be harmful and might be totally useless.
I am concerned about that, and I am asking if there is any *evidence*
that what you suggest is *safe*.
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
You've got angry when I've asked about that. Maybe you should unhook
your ego, take your chip off your shoulder, and pay attention to the
fact that I'm asking *about what you suggested for the person this
thread is about*.
It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about the health of a
person who I've never met, never will meet, will never have anything
directly to do with - but nonetheless, someone I care about.
You seem to have forgotten what the thread is about: you've turned it
into an attack on me, because I dared question one of your divine
pronouncements.
You seem to care about your own precious ego more than anything else.
I've had the unmitigated gall to question one of your pronouncements:
the Great Goddess Linda Has Given Us The Truth and Rowland is an Evil
Toad for Daring to Question Her Greatness.
That's what's going on, isn't it?
I've merely *asked some sensible questions* about the compound
preparation that you suggested should be used. This is the main one:
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
Sensible questions indeed - and what I've collected is a personal
attack. This isn't about you, Linda, it's about someone else and I
think that your advice *MIGHT* be harmful advice and I'm wondering *IF*
there's any information around to confirm that your suggestion is
*safe*.
If there isn't any such evidence - and it seems from your aggression
towards me that there is not any such evidence - then I would suggest
it's best to avoid your suggestion.
If there is such evidence somewhere, can you explain why you have taken
it upon yourself to attack me personally rather than deal with the
simple, straightforward facts about what you think this person should be
consuming?
After all, that's what this is all about: is it *safe* for this person
to consume what you have told them to consume?
You got angry when I raised the question - suggests to me that you're
someone who wants to persuade people to consume chemicals in toxic
quantities, and I think that's a Bad Idea.
> If you want to initiate a thread which is about you, initiate your
> own gosh thread titled something ala "What Rowland McDonnell Prefers"
I'm asking if there is any evidence that what you propose is *safe*.
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
It's not about me - nor is it about *you*.
I'm concerned that you are proposing something that is harmful. I would
like to know if there is evidence of the *safety* of this compound
preparation.
Oh, never mind effectiveness - a ranting person like you never cares if
something *works* or not. I'm not too bothered about official claims of
efficacy myself, since they are so often so badly wrong.
Mostly, claims made for the efficacy of anything medical are greatly
exaggerated, no matter who makes them.
> > > Readers were not provided factual based info where you republished the
> > > following statement regarding Vitamin B-100 Complex:
> >
> >
> > > "The B vitamins it contains are in doses of either 100 mg or 100 mcg"
> >
> > > That statement is a misleading/false statement
> >
> > ... which I correctly attributed to an anonymous author and left in my
> > post so that others could comment with a view to ensuring more reliable
> > information.
> >
> > There's no need for you to get so damned hostile and rude about me doing
> > the ideal thing.
>
> There's no need for you to get so damned hostile and rude in response
> to my ideal response to your publishing articles in which you display
> your inflated sense of self-importance?
I'm getting a lot of anger here, but not a lot else.
I see you displaying an inflated sense of self-importance. I ask for
evidence of safety and you attack me as if - as if what?
As if - as if I am being unreasonable in questioning what you propose,
that's what.
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
That's all - but you decided to get personal because I asked that
questoin.
Linda, this isn't about me and it's not about you. It's about what you
suggested someone should consume. Is it safe? You took my factual
question as a personal affront. It's not about you, Linda, it's about
someone else.
Don't say `Tens of millions blah blah blah' means nothing. Lots of
people do things that are harmful to people, often themselves, very
often without realising it.
> > >Since Vitamin B-100
> > > Complex generally contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 a/k/a Folic
> > > Acid, 100 micrograms of Vitamin B-12 and Biotin, and, 100
> > > milligrams of each of the other B Vitamins.
> >
> > > The point of my post was to "slip in" the fact that Vitamin B-100
> > > Complex contains 400 micrograms of Vitamin B9 aka Folic Acid---not,
> > > 100 mg's or 100 mcg's which a previous author had inadvertently misled
> > > readers into falsely believing it contains.
> >
> > But where is the medical evidence that it is appropriate to consume this
> > stuff at all?
>
> What is or isn't "appropriate" to consume is up to each and every
> individual, not you, nor any other lying, thieving, murdering
> gangster with a degree.
For a choice to be a sensible one, it must be an *informed* choice.
I've noticed a tendency for people to demand free choice based on
ignorance and superstition - is that what you're on about? I want some
science, but you'd prefer ignorance and superstition, yes?
So: because I have had the gall to ask the sensible questions about the
safety of your proposal, you decide to imply that I an a lying,
thieving, murdering gangster?
Very reasonable behaviour on your part.
Your implication that anyone giving advice based on a sound evidence
base, and those creating that sound evidence base, are lying, thieving,
murdering gangsters is something that I simply don't understand.
You *seem* to want people to base their choices on ignorance and
superstition. I can't think of any other interpretation that makes
sense.
I'm arguing that someone should be properly informed before making a
choice, nothing more.
The fact that I happen to have a couple of science degrees is neither
here nor there: I would have demanded the same sort of evidence when I
was 14. It's just normal, rational behaviour.
It's counted as `normal behaviour', is wanting evidence, ever since the
18th century at least in educated European circles.
The USA started out with a few people wanting the same sort of
rationality, but the rationality project seems to have been abandoned in
the USA and replaced with a drive back towards ignorant mediaeval
superstition.
I *assume* that you're a USAian - your style of raving on is rare
outside the USA.
> > Where are the test results that demostrate long-term safety?
> >
> > Is there any sound, scientific reason to think that these preparations
> > are a good idea?
>
> Since when do test results published by research ho's around the globe
> demonstrate anything other than which gangsta's with degrees are
> raking in the most moolah from Global Corporations?
Since when has that sort of attitude got anyone anywhere?
> > All we've....
>
> We???
>
> Where one's assertions have merit one has no need to resort to
> employing the "Royal We" to lend one's assertions legitimacy their
> assertions doesn't otherwise have.
To quote the entire sentence:
"All we've had so far is a vague claim that increased demand for one
component increases demand for another."
which makes it perfectly clear that the `We' I was referring to was
nothing other than the readers of this thread.
Which in turn demonstrates the fact that you've decided to turn this
into a thread about what you think about me.
I don't care what you think about me. I want to know about this
compound vitamin preparation: where is the evidence that it is safe?
> > I wouldn't take a compound preparation of this sort, not unless
> > prescribed by a doctor I trusted. Part of my thinking is based on your
> > insulting response: there do not appear to be any sound reasons for
> > thinking that these compound preparations are safe or useful.
>
> This thread isn't about whether or not Rowland McDonnell would consume
> Vitamin B-100 Complex, nor is this thread about under which
> circumstances Rowland McDonnell might consume Vitamin B-100 Complex,
> nor is this thread about whom Rowland McDonnell chooses to trust and/
> or consult wrt Vitamin B Compounds, nor is this thread about what
> Rowland McDonnell thinks and/or perceives.
I know. It's not about Vitamin B-100 complex at all.
It's about a person, and I am concerned that your advice might be
harmful. I want some data.
> This thread is about what the highly irritable and angered female(s)
> of child bearing age have and/or would consume to alleviate extreme
> irritableness and anger which impairs their normal functioning every
> third week or so.
No, it's about a woman. The female in question is a human female - not
a wasp or a warthog, but a woman.
This part of the thread was supposed to be about whether or not your
proposal for that woman is a *safe* proposal or not.
You didn't like me questioning your divine pronouncements, and so you
turned it into an attack on me. And now you're complaining at me for
being too concerned with myself. Well, I'm not. You've got obsessed
with me, decided to get all personal, forget about the point I raised:
Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
thing to do?
> Tens of millions of child bearing age females who become highly
> irritable and angered every third week or so take Vitamin B-100
> Complex or a similiar compound comprised of B Vitamins.
So what? Once upon a time, tens of millions of woman were once
prescribed beer when pregnant, including my own mother.
It's since been shown to have had harmful effects on the growing foetus.
Most medical practice is like that - harmful, until the research shows
that it's harmful and a generation has passed and then finally doctors
stop harming their patients that way because they've died not because
they learnt better.
Those who advise people on medical matters who do not have medical
training are even worse than doctors for advising people to take toxic
substances.
I'm not one of those maniacs who uses the thought process `Doctors are a
menace, therefore non-doctors are not menaces'. But here you are:
someone without medical training making a treatment suggestion for a
real, live human being.
This needs to be looked at very carefully.
Where are the test results which show that what you propose is safe?
Is there anything which demonstrates the effectiveness of what you
propose?
Rowland McDonnell
> hopethrudesp...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > The psychotherapy helps me a great deal. I also use
> > writing for therapy. I created a blog and I come to groups like
> > this. I am on disability at the moment as I cannot work. I am afraid
> > of closed spaces, and am afraid to leave my bedroom.
>
> I hope this ng (UPSD) helps. It can get a bit fractious in here at
> times, but I think all the posters are sympathetic to someone with
> genuine problems.
You know damned well that a lot of the posters in upsd have nothing but
malice in mind to all.
upsd is filled with trolls who take great pleasure in being nasty to
people. Me Evil knows this.
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
> hopethrudesp...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > Hello
> > I have had similar symptoms to your girl friend and they became a lot
> > worse recently. Most times I cannot tell what triggers them but I do
> > know that I do blame anyone who is with me at the time. When I am
> > alone and go through these spells, I have no one to blame so I
> > meditate and pray and try to think of pleasant things in my life.
> > I have been seeing a psychologist for a while and she has diagnosed me
> > with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome with episodes of major
> > depression. I went to my GP for antidepressants but they made my
> > condition worse. The psychotherapy helps me a great deal. I also use
> > writing for therapy. I created a blog and I come to groups like
> > this. I am on disability at the moment as I cannot work. I am afraid
> > of closed spaces, and am afraid to leave my bedroom. Every day some
> > new symptom is exhibited. Now I take it an hour at a time. My
> > husband is studying my conditions and he is seeking advice as to how
> > to care for me. Do not despair. She probably if were always normal
> > would be able to tell you how much she appreciates you standing by
> > her.
>
> Her psycho-boy pal is NOT standing by her.
>
> Her psycho-boy pal is invalidating her by denying the reality of her
> grave and complex autoimmune and glandular condition(s),
Really? Are you so sure of that?
> and,
> instead, seeking AMMO from psychiatric patients (like you) which the
> boy pal intends to use to persuade, entreat, convince, coerce and
> bully her into acquiesing to his effort to deflect/project his mental
> illness on a gal pal which the gal pal's own physicians never slammed
> her with.
I really do think you should stop projecting your ideas onto reality.
You seem to have a fixed idea of what's going on that doesn't remotely
match what I've observed.
> But, don't any of you psychiatric patients allow the facts to stand
> in the way of your projecting your psychitatric conditions on
> everyone else.
And you, somehow, are special and better than all the rest of us and the
only expert in everything that anyone ever needs to consult?
Oh Great And Wonderful Leader, I hail your wisdom and kneel before your
magnificence!
I humbly beg your pardon for daring to question the safety of a drug
proposal you made for a patient you've never examined.
Given that you have no medical qualifications, have never examined the
patient, and have no evidence for the safety or efficiacy of your drug
proposal, obviously I spoke out of turn. I am a lowly worm who deserves
to be squashed.
Of course only people other than you have mental health problems, of
couse, of course, and of course there's nothing wrong with Miss
Magnificence here, is there? And of course anyone with depression is
sure to be a raving psychotic maniac, of course. Of course as soon as
one receives a diagnosis of any mental health problem, then of course he
becomes totally irrational and of course all people without such a
diagnosis are always more reliable in their thinking, always fully
rational, of course.
You remind me of a character, Opal Koboi, who's in a series of
children's books by one Eoin Colfer (the Artemis Fowl series - think
kiddies' James Bond, except that Artemis is a crook and fairies are
involved). Highly recommended.
Opal Koboi is mad - written that way. And she behaves just like you do.
You could have been the model for her - it's almost like Eoin Colfer
lifted you from life and put you straight into the book as his ragingly
mad totally self-obsessed psychotic sprite (I did say the books
contained fairies. This one develops very high-tech gadgetry. She's
mad, but also very clever).
It seems to me that if this lass does have a real thyroid problem, then
she does not need your amateur suggestions of what quackery she need to
take, but instead needs the attention of a real doctor to give her the
real treatment that real people with thyroid problems really need.
The last thing I'd do in her position is pay attention to some ignorant
ranting maniac who's convinced that some health-freak faddism is the
panacea. People like you cause a great deal of suffering and early
death that could be avoided - just by people ignoring your type.
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > > "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > I answered Rowland's generic question in generic terms.
> >
> > > I acknowledged as much.
> >
> > > Nonetheless, a compound is not considered to be Vitamin B-100 Complex
> >
> > By whom?
>
> Those who manufacture, sell, and consume it.
So it's merely a marketing term?
> > Where is this standard defined?
>
> In all the literature published by those who manufacture, sell, and
> consume it.
I have read some of that literature and the data was not apparent, so
I'm sure you're not telling me the truth.
> > > unless it contains approximately 400 micrograms Folic Acid a/k/a
> > > Vitamin B-9 and 100 milligrams or 100 micrograms of the other B
> > > Vitamins, generically or otherwise.
> >
> > Where did you get this definition?
>
> In all the literature published by those who manufacture, sell, and
> consume it.
I have read some of that literature and the data was not apparent, so
I'm sure you're not telling me the truth.
> > And is there any evidence that consuming this stuff is safe?
>
> Geez Louise!
I'm Rowland, not Louise.
> The B Vitamins are ESSENTIAL vitamins.
>
> Enuff said!
And all vitamins are toxic in a high enough dose[1].
Enuff said!
I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
than those who do not.
Doses of vitamin E significantly above the recommended daily average (or
whatever the local term is) have also been shown to be harmful to
people.
Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar bear
liver, for example.
So: is it safe to consume this stuff?
Rowland.
[1] Almost everything is, when you get down to it.
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
> day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
> than those who do not.
Even if that observation is correct (it would help if you gave references,
so others could consider the information that you have considered), there
are always many different variables that influence the correlation. For
example, it may be that A correlates with B, but that might be explained by
both A and B correlating with a third factor, C. In hypothetical terms,
sickly people may tend to self-medicate with vitamins. Healthy people would
see no need or reason to do so.
> Doses of vitamin E significantly above the recommended daily average (or
> whatever the local term is) have also been shown to be harmful to
> people.
The vast majority of studies into the health effects of vitamin E have
involved synthetic E, specifically one isomer, D-alpha-tocopherol. Natural
vitamin E comes in 8 isomers. Large or disproportionate intake of
D-alpha-tocopherol can displace D-gamma-tocopherol in cell membranes, where
the former cannot function in the electron transfer chain in which D-gamma
serves as the antioxidant. The scientific method, as applied in the vitamin
E studies, is a flawed methodology. Vitamins ought never to be taken in
isolation, but the scientific method demands it, in order to have only one
independent variable. Moreover, the assumption that synthetic
D-alpha-tocopherol might stand in as a surrogate for natural vitamin E is
false. In fact, most nutritionists also include eight tocotrienol isomers
within the category "vitamin E", so there are really 16 distinct chemicals
whose intake ought to be simultaneous. Furthermore, increases in vitamin E
intake increase the demand on vitamin C, and the failure to co-administer
that vitamin along with vitamin E confound the observations, as many
negative outcomes are really due to subclinical scurvy. When vitamin C
deficiency kills via scurvy, it is primarily because vitamin E is no longer
recycled in cell membranes. Also, sub-clinical vitamin K deficiency can
become overt with increases in vitamin E intake. If you consider these two
together, treating people with synthetic vitamin E is not going to solve the
health issues of people who have not been eating enough fruits and
vegetables (primary sources of C and K). Instead, it's just another
stressor.
> Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar bear
> liver, for example.
That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A. Vitamin
D toxicology has undergone a revolution in the last decade. The myth arose
from studies conducted over 70 years ago, in which contaminated
ergocalciferol (plant-derived vitamin D2) induced toxic reactions. Nowadays,
single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical disorders
(under medical supervision, if I really need to say it). The estimated daily
intake requirements are being constantly revised upwards. 70% or more of
Brits are deficient, with those darker-skinned individuals with tropical
ancestry approaching 100% deficiency status.
> So: is it safe to consume this stuff?
>
> Rowland.
Absolutely. It is far safer than the sprinkle of salt you put on your fish
and chips, or the sugar you add to your tea or coffee. The toxic doses are
absurd multiples of anything you can buy over the counter, and require
chronic intake at those absurd levels to manifest symptoms. Except for
vitamin A. In contrast, one single overdose of salt or sugar will kill.
Lar
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
>
> all vitamins are toxic in a high enough dose[1].
>
Duh!
So is H2O a/k/a as water.
perkyone
It honestly sounds like she is bipolar 2. Which is like bipolar, but
without the psychotic and delusional stuff. that and SSRIs and
typical antidepressants will make it WORSE, and can tend to make one
cycle. maybe have her look into that?
-amber
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
> > day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
> > than those who do not.
>
> Even if that observation is correct (it would help if you gave references,
> so others could consider the information that you have considered),
I note that while you point out the fact that I did not provide a
reference, you don't seem to have managed to give any references
yourself.
I merely stating that I was recalling a study I'd read. You're making
definite claims - but on what basis? Anything at all?
> there
> are always many different variables that influence the correlation. For
> example, it may be that A correlates with B, but that might be explained by
> both A and B correlating with a third factor, C.
<puzzled> Of course.
> In hypothetical terms,
> sickly people may tend to self-medicate with vitamins. Healthy people would
> see no need or reason to do so.
Many healthy people do in fact take vitamin supplements - since it's not
for a cure, it's not self-medication.
The hypothesis is proven false by casual observation, I'm afraid.
> > Doses of vitamin E significantly above the recommended daily average (or
> > whatever the local term is) have also been shown to be harmful to
> > people.
>
> The vast majority of studies into the health effects of vitamin E have
> involved synthetic E, specifically one isomer, D-alpha-tocopherol.
So what?
> Natural
> vitamin E comes in 8 isomers. Large or disproportionate intake of
> D-alpha-tocopherol can displace D-gamma-tocopherol in cell membranes, where
> the former cannot function in the electron transfer chain in which D-gamma
> serves as the antioxidant. The scientific method, as applied in the vitamin
> E studies, is a flawed methodology. Vitamins ought never to be taken in
> isolation, but the scientific method demands it, in order to have only one
> independent variable.
But it's impossible to control any study on a human being to that
extent.
[snip irrelevant stuff about vitamin E]
> > Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar bear
> > liver, for example.
>
> That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A.
Hmm. Not what I've read in New Scientist, but it's not always right.
Do you have a reference for that?
> Vitamin
> D toxicology has undergone a revolution in the last decade. The myth arose
> from studies conducted over 70 years ago, in which contaminated
> ergocalciferol (plant-derived vitamin D2) induced toxic reactions.
Old studies are often very good, you know.
> Nowadays,
> single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
> cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical disorders
> (under medical supervision, if I really need to say it).
What's that in grams?
> The estimated daily
> intake requirements are being constantly revised upwards.
All sorts of people make all sorts of claims. Whose estimated
requirements, and on what basis are they calculated?
>70% or more of
> Brits are deficient, with those darker-skinned individuals with tropical
> ancestry approaching 100% deficiency status.
Given that I've known quite a lot of dark-skinned Brits who took care to
ensure a good vitamin D intake in their diet, to account for the weak
sun/dark skin problem, and given that that approach was not abnormal
when I was young, I find it hard to understand how `nearly 100%' of
darker skinned folk in the UK have this problem.
(I grew up in London in the 1970s and 80s)
Given also the amount of sunning of themselves that people round here
seem to do in tanning salons, I doubt that an alleged dietary deficiency
of vitamin D would actually turn out to be a real bodily deficiency in
many cases.
Accelerated skin aging and increased risk of skin cancer there might
be...
Merseyside (here), thankfully, is not representative of the UK. And I
don't come from round here at all. I'm an exiled southerner, lost oop
north in a sea of Scousers.
(ooh! Got some stealth alliteration in there, I reckon)
> > So: is it safe to consume this stuff?
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> Absolutely.
Do you have a reference for that claim?
I find it hard to imagine something that is *absolutely* safe.
What is the toxic dose?
>It is far safer than the sprinkle of salt you put on your fish
> and chips, or the sugar you add to your tea or coffee. The toxic doses are
> absurd multiples of anything you can buy over the counter,
What are the toxic doses? Where does your information come from?
> and require
> chronic intake at those absurd levels to manifest symptoms. Except for
> vitamin A. In contrast, one single overdose of salt or sugar will kill.
By contrast, a million times the standard dose of something normally
consumed in hundreds of micrograms is hundreds of grams, so it's
obviously easy enough to swallow a single ridiculously huge overdose of
some of those B vitamins.
I don't see any easy way I could easily consume a single dose of salt
large enough to kill me.
What's the LD50 dose for sugar in humans? Salt?
B vitamins?
Rowland.
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>>
>> > I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
>> > day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
>> > than those who do not.
>>
>> Even if that observation is correct (it would help if you gave
>> references,
>> so others could consider the information that you have considered),
>
> I note that while you point out the fact that I did not provide a
> reference, you don't seem to have managed to give any references
> yourself.
I made a mistake, in haste. Corrected here.
> I merely stating that I was recalling a study I'd read. You're making
> definite claims - but on what basis? Anything at all?
Reporting about a study is quite different than reporting basic nutritional
science.
>> there
>> are always many different variables that influence the correlation. For
>> example, it may be that A correlates with B, but that might be explained
>> by
>> both A and B correlating with a third factor, C.
>
> <puzzled> Of course.
>
>> In hypothetical terms,
>> sickly people may tend to self-medicate with vitamins. Healthy people
>> would
>> see no need or reason to do so.
>
> Many healthy people do in fact take vitamin supplements - since it's not
> for a cure, it's not self-medication.
>
> The hypothesis is proven false by casual observation, I'm afraid.
I was not promoting that as an hypothesis. I was cautioning about the danger
inherent in the interpretation of correlation. You don't know that what I
suggested is true, or not. It was a thought experiment, not an explanation.
>> > Doses of vitamin E significantly above the recommended daily average
>> > (or
>> > whatever the local term is) have also been shown to be harmful to
>> > people.
>>
>> The vast majority of studies into the health effects of vitamin E have
>> involved synthetic E, specifically one isomer, D-alpha-tocopherol.
>
> So what?
If you read further, you'd have your answer. Including the snipped bit, by
the way.
>> Natural
>> vitamin E comes in 8 isomers. Large or disproportionate intake of
>> D-alpha-tocopherol can displace D-gamma-tocopherol in cell membranes,
>> where
>> the former cannot function in the electron transfer chain in which
>> D-gamma
>> serves as the antioxidant. The scientific method, as applied in the
>> vitamin
>> E studies, is a flawed methodology. Vitamins ought never to be taken in
>> isolation, but the scientific method demands it, in order to have only
>> one
>> independent variable.
>
> But it's impossible to control any study on a human being to that
> extent.
Which begs the question as to why vitamin intake is subjected to an absurd
methodology, does it not?
> [snip irrelevant stuff about vitamin E]
>
>> > Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar
>> > bear
>> > liver, for example.
>>
>> That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A.
>
> Hmm. Not what I've read in New Scientist, but it's not always right.
>
> Do you have a reference for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A
>> Vitamin
>> D toxicology has undergone a revolution in the last decade. The myth
>> arose
>> from studies conducted over 70 years ago, in which contaminated
>> ergocalciferol (plant-derived vitamin D2) induced toxic reactions.
>
> Old studies are often very good, you know.
This particular example is not.
>> Nowadays,
>> single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
>> cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical disorders
>> (under medical supervision, if I really need to say it).
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
> What's that in grams?
40 I.U. = 1 mcg.
>> The estimated daily
>> intake requirements are being constantly revised upwards.
>
> All sorts of people make all sorts of claims. Whose estimated
> requirements, and on what basis are they calculated?
You'll see the sort of inference in the paper referenced above. There are
similar papers for other nutrients, all easily found.
>> > So: is it safe to consume this stuff?
>> >
>> > Rowland.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> Do you have a reference for that claim?
I don't intend to get drawn into extended tangential argument. The original
concern was the consumption of one daily B-100 tablet/capsule. That is the
referent for my statement of absolute safety.
> I find it hard to imagine something that is *absolutely* safe.
>
> What is the toxic dose?
Google to your heart's content. For example, I found that the LD50 for folic
acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
described. If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft. In
contrast, try drinking seawater for a week instead of fresh, and see how
well you make out.
Lar
Larry Hoover
"Larry Hoover" <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nYednd5lLsXHEJbU...@nexicom.net...
>
>> What is the toxic dose?
>
> folic acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
> described. If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft. In
> contrast, try drinking seawater for a week instead of fresh, and see how
> well you make out.
I'm tired after a long week. I wasn't finished with what I was saying.
Sorry.
A half teaspoon of table salt is approximately 1/40 of the LD50 (~210 grams)
for a typical 70 kg adult.
Lar
Self-hating Troll
> The last thing I'd do in her position is pay attention to some ignorant
> ranting maniac who's convinced that some health-freak faddism is the
> panacea. People like you cause a great deal of suffering and early
> death that could be avoided - just by people ignoring your type.
Oh ho! Here it comes. As soon as Rowlikins saw the name Linda.... the
mysogynistic attack begins. No chance Rowlie, she has you on the run
already.
--
"Most mothers are selfish self-centred child abusers from what I've seen."
Rowland McDonnell the Misogynist - Nov 28, 2007
Rowland McDonnell
> "Larry Hoover" <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> What is the toxic dose?
> >
> > Google to your heart's content. For example, I found that the LD50 for
> > folic acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
> > described. If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft. In
> > contrast, try drinking seawater for a week instead of fresh, and see how
> > well you make out.
>
> I'm tired after a long week. I wasn't finished with what I was saying.
> Sorry.
>
> A half teaspoon of table salt is approximately 1/40 of the LD50 (~210 grams)
> for a typical 70 kg adult.
<pained>
Why not just say `LD50 for NaCl is about 210g for a typical 70kg adult'?
Or: about 3.33 mg/kg body mass.
Why complicate the matter?
And: what about D vitamins? And sugar? Let's have the comparison.
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >
> > all vitamins are toxic in a high enough dose[1].
> >
>
> Duh!
>
> So is H2O a/k/a as water.
Not toxic as such, although you can run into problems if you drink too
much and upset the electrolyte balance of your body. Oxygen would be a
better example.
However, you're getting the idea: too much of anything is a Bad Thing.
So:
At what dose does vitamin B-100 complex become toxic?
You've got as far as claiming that there's no toxic dose because the
stuff is nothing but essential vitamins. That claim is obvious
nonsense.
What do the long-term test results tell us about the safety of vitamin
B-100 complex?
I've not seen any such test results at all.
What is the toxic dose of each component and of the combination?
You just sneer with `Dur' when I ask that.
Anyone who knows anything about biology knows that being a vitamin does
not make a substance `safe in any dose'.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
> >> > day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
> >> > than those who do not.
> >>
> >> Even if that observation is correct (it would help if you gave
> >> references,
> >> so others could consider the information that you have considered),
> >
> > I note that while you point out the fact that I did not provide a
> > reference, you don't seem to have managed to give any references
> > yourself.
>
> I made a mistake, in haste. Corrected here.
I can't say I can see that correction.
> > I merely stating that I was recalling a study I'd read. You're making
> > definite claims - but on what basis? Anything at all?
>
> Reporting about a study is quite different than reporting basic nutritional
> science.
But `basic nutritional science' is nothing more than the sum total of
the results from many studies.
So: you claim to have the authority to provide pronouncements on `basic
nutritional science'. Where does your authority come from? Why should
anyone trust you?
Really, you should be providing some sort of reference for your claims
just as you expected me to provide references - although I wasn't trying
to get anyone to accept my word as authoritative, just remarking on
something that I recalled reading.
Authorities are usually wrong. Models backed up with measurements: I'll
trust that. So: where's the evidence for your claims?
> >> there
> >> are always many different variables that influence the correlation. For
> >> example, it may be that A correlates with B, but that might be explained
> >> by
> >> both A and B correlating with a third factor, C.
> >
> > <puzzled> Of course.
> >
> >> In hypothetical terms,
> >> sickly people may tend to self-medicate with vitamins. Healthy people
> >> would
> >> see no need or reason to do so.
> >
> > Many healthy people do in fact take vitamin supplements - since it's not
> > for a cure, it's not self-medication.
> >
> > The hypothesis is proven false by casual observation, I'm afraid.
>
> I was not promoting that as an hypothesis.
But it seemed to me that you were.
>I was cautioning about the danger
> inherent in the interpretation of correlation.
You failed to transmit that message to me.
> You don't know that what I
> suggested is true, or not.
But I am sure your suggestion is wrong, as I explained, since you made
this claim:
"Healthy people would see no need or reason to do so."
which is proven false by casual observation - as I explained.
> It was a thought experiment, not an explanation.
It has the form of an explanation. As far as thought experiments go,
I've never met one that was much use; and in any case, what you
presented did not have the form of a thought experiment.
> >> > Doses of vitamin E significantly above the recommended daily average
> >> > (or
> >> > whatever the local term is) have also been shown to be harmful to
> >> > people.
> >>
> >> The vast majority of studies into the health effects of vitamin E have
> >> involved synthetic E, specifically one isomer, D-alpha-tocopherol.
> >
> > So what?
>
> If you read further, you'd have your answer.
I read further: I found no answer.
> Including the snipped bit, by
> the way.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
> >> Natural vitamin E comes in 8 isomers. Large or disproportionate intake
> >> of D-alpha-tocopherol can displace D-gamma-tocopherol in cell
> >> membranes, where the former cannot function in the electron transfer
> >> chain in which D-gamma serves as the antioxidant. The scientific
> >> method, as applied in the vitamin E studies, is a flawed methodology.
> >> Vitamins ought never to be taken in isolation, but the scientific
> >> method demands it, in order to have only one independent variable.
> >
> > But it's impossible to control any study on a human being to that
> > extent.
>
> Which begs the question as to why vitamin intake is subjected to an absurd
> methodology, does it not?
Try again, using plain English.
btw, the scientific method does not demand that only one variable be
investigated at once. It's just easier to interpret results if you do
so in the general case. So let's hear no more nonsense in that line.
> > [snip irrelevant stuff about vitamin E]
> >
> >> > Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar
> >> > bear liver, for example.
> >>
> >> That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A.
> >
> > Hmm. Not what I've read in New Scientist, but it's not always right.
> >
> > Do you have a reference for that?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A
A /trustworthy/ reference, perhaps? You might have written that
yourself for all I know. But okay, for this point, it'll do.
> >> Vitamin
> >> D toxicology has undergone a revolution in the last decade. The myth
> >> arose
> >> from studies conducted over 70 years ago, in which contaminated
> >> ergocalciferol (plant-derived vitamin D2) induced toxic reactions.
> >
> > Old studies are often very good, you know.
>
> This particular example is not.
Maybe not, but the point is that the age of the study does not show that
it's a bad one and I got the idea that you were trying to get that idea
across.
> >> Nowadays,
> >> single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
> >> cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical disorders
> >> (under medical supervision, if I really need to say it).
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
Righto - which explains that toxic effects have been seen in people
taking vitamin D in doses of 24-40 mg/d - I assume that the `d' means
`day'.
Quite small doses to cause poisoning, I'd say - and if you're right
about the size of 1 IU for vitamin D3, that 6x10^5 IUs (vit D3) is 15
mg/d - not much smaller than doses which have been shown to cause toxic
effects in people in the study you cited to `prove' that vitamin D ain't
very toxic...
I didn't read the full article with full care, but I can't say that I
saw any large long-term studie: not much in the way of long-term health
problems caused by consuming vitamin D could be detected. All the
studies were small in any case.
I've read in that article of health problems caused by consuming vitamin
D + calcium supplements.
And there's nothing about vitamin B toxicity in it at all AFAICT.
> > What's that in grams?
>
> 40 I.U. = 1 mcg.
15 mg, then.
Are you /sure/ that this is the right size for IUs of vitamin D3?
Where's your confirmation of the size of IUs in this case?
I should mention this for the reader: `international units' of this sort
are different for different substances. It's a really stupid measure;
I've no idea why anyone still uses IUs.
(Ye gods you're an awkward bugger: why use bloody IU?
<shudder> It's either $ \mu g $ or micrograms as far as I'm concerned
(I used TeX syntax to described the Greek version).
Okay. But why cite the dose in these `international units' in the first
place? Why fail to give the dose in sane, modern units of the sort
actually used internationally?
It's like being back in the dark ages.)
> >> The estimated daily
> >> intake requirements are being constantly revised upwards.
> >
> > All sorts of people make all sorts of claims. Whose estimated
> > requirements, and on what basis are they calculated?
>
> You'll see the sort of inference in the paper referenced above. There are
> similar papers for other nutrients, all easily found.
Pointers?
> >> > So: is it safe to consume this stuff?
> >> >
> >> > Rowland.
> >>
> >> Absolutely.
> >
> > Do you have a reference for that claim?
>
> I don't intend to get drawn into extended tangential argument
I want to deal with the central problem of someone having suggested the
intake of a substance which might well be harmful. I'm trying to find
out if the safety of Vitamin B-100 Complex has been demonstrated.
So far, there is no indication of test results demonstrating the
long-term safety of taking the stuff.
All we've got is a couple of people making the claim that vitamin B-100
complex is safe - but refusing to supply any pointers to any data to
back up their claims. Since one claim of safety is based on the idea
that vitamins must be safe because - well, `Dur' - I have serious
doubts.
>. The original
> concern was the consumption of one daily B-100 tablet/capsule.
My concern is partly that, and also what'd happen if one were to take
more than the standard dose.
The original concern was some bloke worried about his girlfriend. Or
possibly the business with the apple and serpent.
>That is the
> referent for my statement of absolute safety.
Do you have any references to back up your claim of `absolute safety',
or do you expect people to trust your authority?
> > I find it hard to imagine something that is *absolutely* safe.
> >
> > What is the toxic dose?
>
> Google to your heart's content.
We've got an odd thing here: when I make a claim without references, you
demand references from me.
But when you make a claim without references, you act as if I'm being
unreasonable in asking you for a reference and tell me to find my own.
Does this not strike you as a little unbalanced?
>For example, I found that the LD50 for folic
> acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
> described.
I'm not remotely concerned about that. What about the effects of
consuming *each* of the components of this compound preparation?
The toxicity of a single component is not the issue, nor (particularly)
the toxicity of each component: what I'm most concerned about is the
long safety of the compound preparation.
So: where are the long-term tests showing what happens to people who
take this stuff in the long term?
> If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft.
17.5 million times 400 micrograms is 7 kg.
I have serious doubts about this claim. How's it worked out?
>In
> contrast, try drinking seawater for a week instead of fresh, and see how
> well you make out.
Failing to consume adequate fresh water is of course a problem for any
animal without the biological equipment to deal with it.
I really don't see what that has to do with anything at all.
I might as well suggest that you should try eating nothing but Vitamin
B-100 complex for a week instead of food and see how well you make out
on that.
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
I'm going to preface this final reply with a statement. You first raised the
question of toxicities, and overdose, recommended intakes, etc. I replied,
on the 25th October, with links for you to do some basic research. Have you
looked? The answers are readily found.
> >> > I merely stating that I was recalling a study I'd read. You're
> >> > making
>> > definite claims - but on what basis? Anything at all?
>>
>> Reporting about a study is quite different than reporting basic
>> nutritional
>> science.
>
> But `basic nutritional science' is nothing more than the sum total of
> the results from many studies.
>
> So: you claim to have the authority to provide pronouncements on `basic
> nutritional science'. Where does your authority come from? Why should
> anyone trust you?
If you had done some research, you'd have independent corroboration.
As I said a week ago:
"I'm not inclined to write a book for you, Rowland. Nor to reinvent the
wheel. You can easily obtain some basic information from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins (follow the hyperlinks to
discussions of individual vitamins), and/or at the Linus Pauling Institute
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins.html , or wherever you
choose. Despite my reluctance to answer questions you could easily answer
for yourself, I will submit the following comments."
> Authorities are usually wrong.
Then what's the point of continuing with this discussion?
>> I was not promoting that as an hypothesis.
>
> But it seemed to me that you were.
>
>>I was cautioning about the danger
>> inherent in the interpretation of correlation.
>
> You failed to transmit that message to me.
There are four possible explanations for correlation. Variable A depends on
Variable B. B depends on A. Both A and B depend on an unmeasured Variable C.
Or, the whole thing is a coincidence. Since death does not lead to high dose
vitamin intake, we can rule out one of the above. I targetted the ABC
relationship, and then tried to contectualize it. As we're dealing with
humans, self-selection bias can be a huge confound. Questions were raised.
Answers were not found. End.
>> >> > Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar
>> >> > bear liver, for example.
>> >>
>> >> That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Not what I've read in New Scientist, but it's not always right.
>> >
>> > Do you have a reference for that?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A
>
> A /trustworthy/ reference, perhaps? You might have written that
> yourself for all I know. But okay, for this point, it'll do.
The article was referenced, Roland. With hyperlinks! It was a convenient
source.
>> >> Nowadays,
>> >> single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
>> >> cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical
>> >> disorders
>> >> (under medical supervision, if I really need to say it).
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
>
> Righto - which explains that toxic effects have been seen in people
> taking vitamin D in doses of 24-40 mg/d - I assume that the `d' means
> `day'.
Right. Multiple doses of 960,000 to 1,600,000 IU. Typical dose 1,000 IU.
> Quite small doses to cause poisoning, I'd say -
Absolutely incorrect. Small in absolute terms, but not small in ratio to
typical use. The salt example I gave has a ratio of 40 times a typical use.
Lithium carbonate has a therapeutic index of only 2.
Paracetamol/acetominophen is toxic at ~4 times the maximum recommended dose.
> and if you're right
> about the size of 1 IU for vitamin D3, that 6x10^5 IUs (vit D3) is 15
> mg/d - not much smaller than doses which have been shown to cause toxic
> effects in people in the study you cited to `prove' that vitamin D ain't
> very toxic...
The "toxicity" you so decry is reversible blood calcium elevation, caused by
multiple doses significantly higher than the single substantial dose I
mentioned is safe, when given under medical supervision.
> I didn't read the full article with full care, but I can't say that I
> saw any large long-term studie: not much in the way of long-term health
> problems caused by consuming vitamin D could be detected. All the
> studies were small in any case.
And, with highly conservative reasoning, they set the UL at 10,000 IU /day.
And the NOAEL is higher still, of course.
They also presented solid evidence that optimisation of health measures came
at no less than about 4,000 IU/day. What a concept! Health optimisation!
> And there's nothing about vitamin B toxicity in it at all AFAICT.
It's about vitamin D.
Now, using your immense intellect, do you think you could use some keywords
from the subject of the paper, and substituting in the names of the B
vitamins, that you might find some more information that answers your own
questions?
>> > What's that in grams?
>>
>> 40 I.U. = 1 mcg.
>
> 15 mg, then.
>
> Are you /sure/ that this is the right size for IUs of vitamin D3?
> Where's your confirmation of the size of IUs in this case?
You're being absurd. It's in that paper, and many other places.
> I should mention this for the reader: `international units' of this sort
> are different for different substances. It's a really stupid measure;
> I've no idea why anyone still uses IUs.
>
> (Ye gods you're an awkward bugger: why use bloody IU?
Because that's the way the information is provided. It's arcane. Do you
still use foot-pounds in your calculations, or do you use SI?
> Okay. But why cite the dose in these `international units' in the first
> place? Why fail to give the dose in sane, modern units of the sort
> actually used internationally?
I did. The standard reference is IU. I gave the conversion.
> It's like being back in the dark ages.)
From a man whose historical measurement system is based on the length of a
king's foot (with such simple ratios as 5280 ft/mi), and weight in stones.
> I want to deal with the central problem of someone having suggested the
> intake of a substance which might well be harmful. I'm trying to find
> out if the safety of Vitamin B-100 Complex has been demonstrated.
>
> So far, there is no indication of test results demonstrating the
> long-term safety of taking the stuff.
AFAIK, no such studies have been conducted. I'm going to go out on a limb
and suggest that it's because no apparent risk has been identified.
I can't prove zero risk. Your concern, IMHO, should be with respect to
benefit. You're only looking at one aspect of what ought to be a
risk/benefit analysis. And, in anticipation of your reply, I refer you to
the quoted paragraph at the top of the page.
> Do you have any references to back up your claim of `absolute safety',
> or do you expect people to trust your authority?
I expect you to go and look for yourself, as I reiterated many times. I have
never found evidence of risk, but you can't prove a negative. All I can say
is that I never found any. And I have looked very hard. You can take that
statement however you wish.
>>For example, I found that the LD50 for folic
>> acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
>> described.
>
> I'm not remotely concerned about that. What about the effects of
> consuming *each* of the components of this compound preparation?
>
> The toxicity of a single component is not the issue, nor (particularly)
> the toxicity of each component: what I'm most concerned about is the
> long safety of the compound preparation.
I've already explained how the B-vitamins are interdependent. I'll no more
try to prove that than I would try to prove the algebra required to master
the calculus. They are safer together, than on their own. Prove me wrong.
>> If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft.
>
> 17.5 million times 400 micrograms is 7 kg.
>
> I have serious doubts about this claim. How's it worked out?
Faultily, I'll admit. There wasn't enough light to power my calculator, and
I made a decimal error using my brain. The correct value is one tenth the
amount I posted. Good catch.
Take the LD50, and assume the standard human is 70kg. I tried to make it
easier for you.
Your stomach cannot hold a million or more tablets, so I fail to see how you
could ingest a toxic dose. The numbers are similar for other B vitamins. Two
keywords in google, and you've got the numbers you need to answer your
questions. I know, because that's where I got my numbers.
A therapeutic index of greater than one million is considered to be very
safe, in case you wondered.
>> A half teaspoon of table salt is approximately 1/40 of the LD50 (~210
>> grams)
>> for a typical 70 kg adult.
>
> <pained>
>
> Why not just say `LD50 for NaCl is about 210g for a typical 70kg adult'?
I added extra information, Rowland. Not just for you, but for the audience
we may have. A typical use of table salt is only 1/40 of the fatal dose.
Compare and contrast with the example of folic acid.
> Or: about 3.33 mg/kg body mass.
>
> Why complicate the matter?
Your concern was safety. I've specifically addressed it. Not just numbers,
I've applied them. Safety factor for lithium carbonate, 2. Safety factor for
table salt, 40. Safety factor for folic acid, 1,750,000.
> And: what about D vitamins? And sugar? Let's have the comparison.
I'm sure you'll take pride in determining those values for yourself. And,
don't forget to calculate the safety factor. For vitamin D, it's greater
than the value I found for folate.
Good day.
Lar
Larry Hoover
>
> Your stomach cannot hold a million or more tablets, so I fail to see how
> you could ingest a toxic dose.
Correction. That should read lethal dose.
> A therapeutic index of greater than one million is considered to be very
> safe, in case you wondered.
I inappropriately carried on with the train of thought above. Therapeutic
index is a ratio dealing with toxicity, not lethality.
> Your concern was safety. I've specifically addressed it. Not just numbers,
> I've applied them. Safety factor for lithium carbonate, 2. Safety factor
> for table salt, 40. Safety factor for folic acid, 1,750,000.
And, therefore, the reference here to lithium carbonate is invalid, and
should be ignored. The other two ratios are valid and correct.
I think my brain fog is really the flu. I feel like hell. I'm going back to
bed.
Lar
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
>
> If you think that telling me I've got an exaggerated sense of
> self-importance isn't insulting, you were brought up very badly.
Your false dilemma is a fallacy of reasoning that omits consideration
of all reasonable alternatives.
Which is irrelevant, since you were and are free to receive the
observations I publish whatever which way you choose to.
>
> Is taking Vitamin B-100 compound vitamin preparation every day a safe
> thing to do?
>
> That's my question.
sigh....
Individuals acquire a wealth of knowledge about what ails them and/or
remedies for what ails them by virtue of their living with what ails
them and/or use of remedies for what ails them for 10, 20, 30, 40,
50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 plus years.
Although, such individuals often consult individuals who purport to
have acquired knowledge about their ailments and/or remedies for their
ailments by virtue of their having studied about it, the gap of
knowledge which exists between those who acquire knowledge about an
ailment and it's remedy from living with it vis a vis individuals who
purport to acquire knowledge about an ailment and it's remedy by
studying about the ailment and it's remedies is so humongous that
successful communication between those who have acquired knowledge
about an ailment and it's remedies in such different ways is next to
impossible.
Individuals who acquire knowledge about an ailment and its' remedies
by virtue of having lived with it for decades, often find they wish
to discuss their ailment and/or it's remedy with other individuals who
*really* know something about the ailment and it's remedies, IOW,
other individuals who acquire knowledge about an ailment and it's
remedy from having lived with it.
Such individuals form and/or charter SUPPORT groups, such as,
alt.support.depression.medication and UK.People.support.depression so
they can meet other individuals who have also acquired a wealth of
knowledge about what ails them and it's remedies and swap notes.
Unfortunately, you and other ruthless and unscrupulous individuals
like you, infiltrate support groups and subvert their entire purpose
by your misusing support groups to hype the propaganda published by
those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments and
remedies by studying about them.
As it happens, I've acquired a wealth of knowledge about waxing and
waning symptoms which arise from an autoimmune response, which may or
may not be being caused by a nodule, goiter, or male fetal cell
chimera within the thyroid gland, but, which are most definitely
exacerbated by any type of physiological stress, such as, the
physiological stress induced by climactic, barometric, and
altitudunal changes from Globe trotting, AND, the physiological
stress arising from the changes constantly taking place within females
of child bearing age as result of their reproductive cycle, as a
result of my living with such.
After reading and considering *all* the facts which the author of the
"Highly Irritible and Angered Person" presented, I responded to the
authors request for help by suggesting that a daily dose of Vitamin
B-100 Complex or similiarly constituted compound might help relieve
the worse symptoms which the "Highly Irritible and Angered Person" in
question is allegedly experiencing---on the basis of the wealth of
knowledge which I've acquired about those ailments and/or their
remedies from my having lived with such.
I have zero qualms about my suggesting the "Highly Irritible and
Angered Person" in question try a harmless, water soluble, compound
comprised of minute quantites of each of the essential B Vitamins to
ease the worse of their alleged symptoms.
Au contraire
I think you ought to be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned and/or
executed for your having infiltrated support groups to subvert them to
serve your sinister agenda at the expense of individuals with ailments
like the "Highly Irritible and Angered Person" in question.
Rev. 11D Meow!
how are things going in your alternate
monoverse, eh?
"Linda" <Indomi...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:ed63d0d4-1178-45eb...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Linda
> "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Oct 16, 6:14 pm, real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland
>
> McDonnell) wrote:
> > > I'd prefer a more formal explanation.
> > An exaggerated sense of self-importance, Â eh?
>
No attitude.
But, as you well know, I'm not among those who are willing to
indulge the inflated sense of sense of self-importance of the sinister
individuals who infiltrate support groups to subvert their purpose to
serve their sinister agenda(s).
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> I'm going to preface this final reply with a statement. You first raised the
> question of toxicities, and overdose, recommended intakes, etc. I replied,
> on the 25th October, with links for you to do some basic research. Have you
> looked? The answers are readily found.
So you sneeringly claim. If you have in fact looked as you claim to
have done, why not just post the links and prove it instead of being
rude and condescending and sneering?
Might it be that the reason is that you're lying and just want to put me
down?
> > >> > I merely stating that I was recalling a study I'd read. You're
> > >> > making
> >> > definite claims - but on what basis? Anything at all?
> >>
> >> Reporting about a study is quite different than reporting basic
> >> nutritional
> >> science.
> >
> > But `basic nutritional science' is nothing more than the sum total of
> > the results from many studies.
> >
> > So: you claim to have the authority to provide pronouncements on `basic
> > nutritional science'. Where does your authority come from? Why should
> > anyone trust you?
>
> If you had done some research, you'd have independent corroboration.
Since I have not in fact done any sort of research in chemistry or
biology, and since you purport to know what you're talking about on this
subject, I'm just like almost everyone else and don't have that
independent corroboration of my own.
I have to say you're being a bit silly.
> As I said a week ago:
> "I'm not inclined to write a book for you, Rowland. Nor to reinvent the
> wheel. You can easily obtain some basic information from wiki
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins (follow the hyperlinks to
> discussions of individual vitamins), and/or at the Linus Pauling Institute
> http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins.html , or wherever you
> choose. Despite my reluctance to answer questions you could easily answer
> for yourself, I will submit the following comments."
Yes, I know. But you are happy to write a lot of crap asserting your
authority and arguing in favour of your authority.
But where is the evidence? Is there any? You sneer, you insult, you
adopt a supercilious tone. You can do all that very well.
But do you have anything to back up your claims?
> > Authorities are usually wrong.
>
> Then what's the point of continuing with this discussion?
You tell me. I want evidence. You want me to trust your authority.
> >> I was not promoting that as an hypothesis.
> >
> > But it seemed to me that you were.
> >
> >>I was cautioning about the danger
> >> inherent in the interpretation of correlation.
> >
> > You failed to transmit that message to me.
>
> There are four possible explanations for correlation. Variable A depends on
> Variable B. B depends on A. Both A and B depend on an unmeasured Variable C.
> Or, the whole thing is a coincidence.
Or A and B are interdependent. I can think of a few other variations as
well.
>Since death does not lead to high dose
> vitamin intake, we can rule out one of the above.
Huh?
>I targetted the ABC
> relationship, and then tried to contectualize it. As we're dealing with
> humans, self-selection bias can be a huge confound. Questions were raised.
> Answers were not found. End.
You're not making a lot of sense, I'm afraid. You're being too
abstract.
> >> >> > Vitamin D is famous for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar
> >> >> > bear liver, for example.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is a myth. The toxic vitamin in polar bear liver is vitamin A.
> >> >
> >> > Hmm. Not what I've read in New Scientist, but it's not always right.
> >> >
> >> > Do you have a reference for that?
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A
> >
> > A /trustworthy/ reference, perhaps? You might have written that
> > yourself for all I know. But okay, for this point, it'll do.
>
> The article was referenced, Roland. With hyperlinks!
So?
(My name has a `W' Larry, and I'll thank you to drop your patronising
tone in future.)
>It was a convenient
> source.
>
> >> >> Nowadays,
> >> >> single doses of 600,000 IU and more of vitamin D3 (animal form,
> >> >> cholecalciferol) are used as acute treatments in some medical
> >> >> disorders
> >> >> (under medical supervision, if I really need to say it).
> >>
> >> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
> >
> > Righto - which explains that toxic effects have been seen in people
> > taking vitamin D in doses of 24-40 mg/d - I assume that the `d' means
> > `day'.
>
> Right. Multiple doses of 960,000 to 1,600,000 IU. Typical dose 1,000 IU.
>
> > Quite small doses to cause poisoning, I'd say -
>
> Absolutely incorrect.
*ABSOLUTELY* incorrect? Well, you might be so in making that claim.
I'm certainly absolutely sure that I'm not absolutely incorrect.
> Small in absolute terms, but not small in ratio to
> typical use.
In fact, you immediately went on to explain that I'm absolutely right -
small in absolute terms, your very words.
Also, you yourself have cited therapeutic doses of vitamin A only about
half the toxic dose - so you seem to be saying that a typical dose of
vitamin A for some purposes is close to the toxic dose.
>The salt example I gave has a ratio of 40 times a typical use.
I have my doubts about that.
> Lithium carbonate has a therapeutic index of only 2.
You could try avoiding jargon that you know I don't understand.
> Paracetamol/acetominophen is toxic at ~4 times the maximum recommended dose.
That's not what the books I've got indicate.
However: so what?
> > and if you're right
> > about the size of 1 IU for vitamin D3, that 6x10^5 IUs (vit D3) is 15
> > mg/d - not much smaller than doses which have been shown to cause toxic
> > effects in people in the study you cited to `prove' that vitamin D ain't
> > very toxic...
>
> The "toxicity" you so decry
I think anyone would decry toxicity, wouldn't they?
> is reversible blood calcium elevation, caused by
> multiple doses significantly higher than the single substantial dose I
> mentioned is safe, when given under medical supervision.
<puzzled> `Safe'? You mean `low risk'.
But this is all about the effects of taking vitamins not under medical
supervision, innit?
> > I didn't read the full article with full care, but I can't say that I
> > saw any large long-term studie: not much in the way of long-term health
> > problems caused by consuming vitamin D could be detected. All the
> > studies were small in any case.
>
> And, with highly conservative reasoning,
Shame that reasoning never gets the right answer on its own, isn't it?
You need data and models. Medical `reasoning' is little better than
superstitious guess-work in my experience.
> they set the UL at 10,000 IU /day.
> And the NOAEL is higher still, of course.
Jargon again, that you know I can't follow.
> They also presented solid evidence that optimisation of health measures came
> at no less than about 4,000 IU/day. What a concept! Health optimisation!
What an idiot. What is he blathering on about?
> > And there's nothing about vitamin B toxicity in it at all AFAICT.
>
> It's about vitamin D.
Indeed.
> Now, using your immense intellect, do you think you could use some keywords
> from the subject of the paper, and substituting in the names of the B
> vitamins, that you might find some more information that answers your own
> questions?
Perhaps you could justify your claims by providing such pointers?
> >> > What's that in grams?
> >>
> >> 40 I.U. = 1 mcg.
> >
> > 15 mg, then.
> >
> > Are you /sure/ that this is the right size for IUs of vitamin D3?
> > Where's your confirmation of the size of IUs in this case?
>
> You're being absurd. It's in that paper, and many other places.
What's absurd about wanting to check a unit size? Have you never heard
of mistakes?
> > I should mention this for the reader: `international units' of this sort
> > are different for different substances. It's a really stupid measure;
> > I've no idea why anyone still uses IUs.
> >
> > (Ye gods you're an awkward bugger: why use bloody IU?
>
> Because that's the way the information is provided. It's arcane. Do you
> still use foot-pounds in your calculations, or do you use SI?
`Still' use foot-pounds in my calculations? I've never used foot-pounds
in any calculations. Of course I use SI, for almost everything. Torque
for calculations is in N-m, obviously. And I'll normally use J or eV
for energy.
(Fuel economy and road distances, I think of in miles per gallon and
miles respectively. Body weight in stones and pounds. Person's height
in feet and inches. SI for pretty much everything else.)
> > Okay. But why cite the dose in these `international units' in the first
> > place? Why fail to give the dose in sane, modern units of the sort
> > actually used internationally?
>
> I did. The standard reference is IU. I gave the conversion.
>
> > It's like being back in the dark ages.)
>
> From a man whose historical measurement system is based on the length of a
> king's foot (with such simple ratios as 5280 ft/mi), and weight in stones.
<puzzled> Kind of my point, I think. We've ditched that and gone
metric - metric was an English idea originally; people tend to attribute
it to the dastardly French, but they were just the ones who implemented
metric first.
Now is not the time to explain why the statue mile was changed to 5280
feet, but if you would care to look it up on the Web, you will discover
it was done because it gives simpler calculations that way.
However, you will note that all ancient measurement systems - very
nearly - were based on daft natural things.
> > I want to deal with the central problem of someone having suggested the
> > intake of a substance which might well be harmful. I'm trying to find
> > out if the safety of Vitamin B-100 Complex has been demonstrated.
> >
> > So far, there is no indication of test results demonstrating the
> > long-term safety of taking the stuff.
>
> AFAIK, no such studies have been conducted. I'm going to go out on a limb
> and suggest that it's because no apparent risk has been identified.
Nor would it be until the study has been done.
[snip]
> >>For example, I found that the LD50 for folic
> >> acid is ~17,500,000 times the dose found in the B-100 product Linda
> >> described.
> >
> > I'm not remotely concerned about that. What about the effects of
> > consuming *each* of the components of this compound preparation?
> >
> > The toxicity of a single component is not the issue, nor (particularly)
> > the toxicity of each component: what I'm most concerned about is the
> > long safety of the compound preparation.
>
> I've already explained how the B-vitamins are interdependent. I'll no more
> try to prove that than I would try to prove the algebra required to master
> the calculus.
Huh? You're making no sense at all. The proof of basic algebraic stuff
is easy to churn out if you want to.
>They are safer together, than on their own. Prove me wrong.
<very puzzled> No, you prove your claim has any validity at all.
I can't disprove the creationist hypothesis for the existence of the
universe, and the fact that I can't do so doesn't matter because there
is no evidence in favour of it at all.
Ditto in this case: you're making an assertion, much as a creationist
would, and insisting that you're right because I've no disproof.
Well, sunshine, it's up to you to provide proof.
> >> If you think you can swallow that many tablets, you're daft.
> >
> > 17.5 million times 400 micrograms is 7 kg.
> >
> > I have serious doubts about this claim. How's it worked out?
>
> Faultily, I'll admit. There wasn't enough light to power my calculator, and
> I made a decimal error using my brain.
Uhuh. No calculator available on your computer, then?
However: what is your data source? How was the assessment made in the
first place?
How can anyone be sure?
I am questioning the reliability of the research, and I want to know
where it comes from.
> The correct value is one tenth the
> amount I posted. Good catch.
And where is your reference for this claim? I'm hardly going to /trust/
your claims, am I now?
> Take the LD50, and assume the standard human is 70kg. I tried to make it
> easier for you.
You're making no sense.
> Your stomach cannot hold a million or more tablets,
1) I'm not sure you're right.
2) So what?
How big is a human stomach?
> so I fail to see how you
> could ingest a toxic dose.
Toxicty potentiated by some other factor, perhaps. Also by not taking
the folic acid
> The numbers are similar for other B vitamins. Two
> keywords in google,
Which ones? I generally can't find what I want via Google when it comes
to this sort of thing without a pointer. Don't ask me why, but I don't
seem to be able to think of the right search terms if I want to find
stuff.
> and you've got the numbers you need to answer your
> questions. I know, because that's where I got my numbers.
So show me.
> A therapeutic index of greater than one million is considered to be very
> safe, in case you wondered.
I've no trust in `is considered'. Is considered /by whom/?
Your arithmetic and numerical claims don't work out right so far.
> >> A half teaspoon of table salt is approximately 1/40 of the LD50 (~210
> >> grams) for a typical 70 kg adult.
> >
> > <pained>
> >
> > Why not just say `LD50 for NaCl is about 210g for a typical 70kg adult'?
>
> I added extra information, Rowland.
And you're just being patronising now, Larry.
>Not just for you, but for the audience
> we may have.
Half a teaspoon of salt can't be more than a couple of grams, off the
top of my head (1tsp = 5 ml; 5ml water = 5g; 2.5ml NaCl = less than
3g[1]). So I'd guess that half a teaspoon of salt is more like 1/80 of
the LD50 for a typ. 70kg adult.
What /other/ errors and distortions have you introduced?
>A typical use of table salt is only 1/40 of the fatal dose.
> Compare and contrast with the example of folic acid.
Compare and contrast with your unreliable report. And so what in any
case?
> > Or: about 3.33 mg/kg body mass.
> >
> > Why complicate the matter?
>
> Your concern was safety.
That's no answer to the question, which was: why complicate the matter?
>I've specifically addressed it. Not just numbers,
> I've applied them.
But you've not supplied the numbers regarding the safety issue I'm
interested in.
> Safety factor for lithium carbonate, 2. Safety factor for
> table salt, 40. Safety factor for folic acid, 1,750,000.
They ain't safety factors in the sense I know them.
> > And: what about D vitamins? And sugar? Let's have the comparison.
>
> I'm sure you'll take pride in determining those values for yourself.
Did you take a college course in patronising sneering?
>And,
> don't forget to calculate the safety factor. For vitamin D, it's greater
> than the value I found for folate.
So you claim. I don't believe your claims. I think that anyone who's
as sneering and supercilious and condescending as you are isn't honest.
My main reason for writing that is that you've done nothing but sneer
when I've asked you to provide references. You *claim* to have the
figures to hand, so you claim - but I've caught you out providing
inaccurate information already, haven't I?
Rowland.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Table_salt>
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> Unfortunately, you and other ruthless and unscrupulous individuals
> like you, infiltrate support groups and subvert their entire purpose
> by your misusing support groups to hype the propaganda published by
> those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments and
> remedies by studying about them.
Riiight - so I'm an unscrupulous individual because I think that it's a
good idea to get some evidence for the safety and efficacy of a
suggested treatment?
Based on that, I have to say I think I'm a better class of person than
your sort: your sort infiltrates support groups and subverts their
entire purpose by misusing support groups to hype the propaganda
published by those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments
and remedies by *REFUSING* to study anything and relying purely on
dogma.
It's odd that you should characterise my behaviour as hyping something,
given that I was merely asking questions. Questions like `Do you have
any evidence for the safety of your drug recommendation for this patient
you've never seen?'
- because you are in effect recommending a drug treatment for an ill
person.
You responded to my sensible, reasonable questions with a barrage of
personal abuse.
Why not address the issues in an honest way?
(I'd guess it's because you are a USAian - personal abuse in response to
reasonable questioning is a standard US debating tactic, as anyone who's
noticed US election coverage can't but have noticed)
[snip]
Never mind reality - what you say must be true, ain't that so?
And anyone who questions you must be subjected to a barrage of personal
abuse.
I am an unworthy sinner who must be cast into the outer darkness for the
crime of daring to question your authority, ain't that so?
> As it happens, I've acquired a wealth of knowledge about waxing and
> waning symptoms which arise from an autoimmune response,
So you claim - but where does this information come from? Meditation?
Divine inspiration? You're opposed to research and methods I consider
to be the ones that work.
Frankly my dear, you are sounding completely insane.
I can't say I trust doctors, but I'd sooner trust a doctor than a faith
healer like yourself.
> I have zero qualms about my suggesting the "Highly Irritible and
> Angered Person" in question try a harmless, water soluble, compound
> comprised of minute quantites of each of the essential B Vitamins to
> ease the worse of their alleged symptoms.
I have to tell all readers that the `harmless' chemicals she's talking
about are perfectly capable of killing people because they are highly
potent toxic chemicals in some cases.
She's got the crazy idea that I've met elsewhere that if it's water
soluble, it's not possible to overdose on it. She has other mad ideas
in her head too: I think it'd be a very bad idea to follow any of her
suggestions.
Salt (NaCl) is water soluble. 3mg/kg body mass is apparently enough to
kill a human being.
Anyone following the advice of this person is likely to run into
problems. She thinks that her ideas are more reliable than research
results, but her ideas are barking mad.
Rowland McDonnell
> "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > "Linda" <indomitabl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > > > I'd prefer a more formal explanation.
> > > An exaggerated sense of self-importance, eh?
> >
> > What's with the attitude, Linda?
>
> No attitude.
>
> But, as you well know, I'm not among those who are willing to
> indulge the inflated sense of sense of self-importance of the sinister
> individuals who infiltrate support groups to subvert their purpose to
> serve their sinister agenda(s).
Your sinister agenda, in trying to get people to trust faith healers
like yourself and to persuade people to mistrust the evidence of
reality, that sinister agenda is one that I'll work against
relentlessly.
People like you have to be stopped before they cause any more harm with
your mad, bad, and dangerous ideas.
You seem to think that you're a special person with special powers that
lets her `just know' things. You mistrust experimental results. You're
a dangerous nutter, you are.
What `sinister agenda' you think I have is anyone's guess.
As for my sense of self-importance, well, I don't think I'm important,
but I do think I've got relevant questions.
I asked my relevant questions, and you started a campaign of vicious
personal abuse against me, accusing me of having a sinister agenda, and
an inflated sense of importance, and so on.
All because I dared question your pronouncements!
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
[snip]
> > Quite small doses to cause poisoning, I'd say -
>
> Absolutely incorrect. Small in absolute terms, but not small in ratio to
> typical use. The salt example I gave has a ratio of 40 times a typical use.
> Lithium carbonate has a therapeutic index of only 2.
> Paracetamol/acetominophen is toxic at ~4 times the maximum recommended dose.
[snip]
According to Wikipedia, it takes 1g/kg of salt in a human to kill, which
is about 70g for a typical 70kg human.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Health_effects>
You claimed that `LD50 for NaCl is about 210g for a typical 70kg adult'?
I claimed that was about 3.33 mg/kg body mass. But I made an
arithemtical error; it's more like: 3 g/kg.
(which error mostly comes from juggling kg and g and getting the
multipliers wrong 'cos I didn't write anything down on paper)
Recommendations in Wikipedia on NaCl consumption are in the region of 4g
daily, with recommended upper limits of around 5g daily - and typical
(UK) NaCl consumption being about 10g daily.
But too little salt will kill you too. It's one of those things like
water, oxygen, and air that needs to be provided to the body at just the
right level or you're in trouble. Just like vitamins, in a way.
Too much is bad, and too little is bad. But /what is the evidence/?
What does the *evidence* tell us about the effects of varying quantities
of the substances under consideration?
btw, you made a claim about the lethal toxic effects of sugar in humans.
Not found a figure for that, but in rats, LD50 for sucrose is apparently
29.7 g/kg.
<http://www.msmr.org/documents/BFTBToxicology6.pdf>
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> Salt (NaCl) is water soluble. 3mg/kg body mass is apparently enough to
> kill a human being.
[snip]
Big error: it's more like 1-3g/kg.
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortunately, Â you and other ruthless and unscrupulous individuals
> > like you, Â infiltrate support groups and subvert their entire purpose
> > by your misusing support groups to hype the propaganda published by
> > those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments and
> > remedies by studying about them.
>
> Riiight - so I'm an unscrupulous individual
Yep!
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Unfortunately, you and other ruthless and unscrupulous individuals
> > > like you, infiltrate support groups and subvert their entire purpose
> > > by your misusing support groups to hype the propaganda published by
> > > those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments and
> > > remedies by studying about them.
> >
> > Riiight - so I'm an unscrupulous individual
>
> Yep!
... because I think that it's a
good idea to get some evidence for the safety and efficacy of a
suggested treatment?
And that makes me unscrupulous?
*YOU* are the person trying to convince someone to BUY and eat chemicals
to treat a medical condition - despite the fact that you've never
examined the person, you're not qualified to do so, and you have no data
at all on the safety or efficacy of the chemicals you think that they
should buy and consume.
One of us lacks scruples, that's for sure.
What financial gain do you get from increased sales of B-100 complex?
If you get none, why are you pushing it so strongly?
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
I don't mind having this sort of discussion with you, Rowland. I apologize
for misspelling your name, earlier.
In this case, you're engaged with comprehending the material. Very early on,
when I supplied references, you didn't check them. Later, when I supplied a
specific paper that comprehensively addressed the risks and benefits of
vitamin D, you later acknowledged not reading the whole thing. I can't make
you learn something. I can't shortcut the process for you, as I don't have
any idea what you know now, nor what you need to know, to obtain
comprehension. At each level of explanation, it seemed to me that your
questions expanded exponentially.
I didn't make up terms like IU, UL, or NOAEL. Vitamin D is a hormone, and it
is active at nanogram concentrations. IU is a term referencing biological
activity, and it is in arbitrary units. UL, or upper limit, is the maximum
daily intake level that is believed to be absolutely safe, if intake
continues forever. It has numerous mathematical safety factors built into
it, but in any case, it lies well below the No Observable Adverse Effects
Level of intake, which is based on the most sensitive of individuals.
To find an LD50, with two strings, you put 'LD50' and 'chemical name' into
google.
> According to Wikipedia, it takes 1g/kg of salt in a human to kill, which
> is about 70g for a typical 70kg human.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#Health_effects>
That's not an LD50. But, in any case, it reduces the safety factor, doesn't
it? I.e., the common use versus the lethal use ratio.
> You claimed that `LD50 for NaCl is about 210g for a typical 70kg adult'?
>
> I claimed that was about 3.33 mg/kg body mass. But I made an
> arithemtical error; it's more like: 3 g/kg.
>
> (which error mostly comes from juggling kg and g and getting the
> multipliers wrong 'cos I didn't write anything down on paper)
> Recommendations in Wikipedia on NaCl consumption are in the region of 4g
> daily, with recommended upper limits of around 5g daily - and typical
> (UK) NaCl consumption being about 10g daily.
I based my calculations on the LD50 for rats, which is 3g/kg. It's the best
estimate available, but it is more generous than the figure you supplied. I
used the density of sodium chloride (2.1 g/cc) and the volume of a teaspoon
(5 cc) to calculate a possible typical exposure of around 5 grams.
The idea was to create a thinking point of actual risk, versus perceived
risk. The actual lethal risk of table salt is somewhere in the neighbourhood
of 40-fold that of a typical exposure. I've never yet seen a safety warning
on a salt cellar. And yet, in the example I gave for folic acid, where the
lethal exposure is greater than six orders of magnitude more than the
typical exposure, we're supposed to fear toxicity?
If you're really interested, go here: http://www.nap.edu/ This site allows
full-text viewing of books that are similar in scope to that lone paper on
vitamin D. With appropriate keyword searching (e.g. DRI UL zinc), you can
obtain all the safety and efficacy data you can ever imagine on any vitamin
or mineral required for human health.
If you're interested in references, I wrote this a while ago:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465446.html
> But too little salt will kill you too. It's one of those things like
> water, oxygen, and air that needs to be provided to the body at just the
> right level or you're in trouble. Just like vitamins, in a way.
No, just like vitamins. Except the region in the middle is far more
expansive, in the latter case.
> Too much is bad, and too little is bad. But /what is the evidence/?
> What does the *evidence* tell us about the effects of varying quantities
> of the substances under consideration?
The vitamin D paper discusses that, with respect to cholecalciferol. The
nap.edu website may be a little more dated, but it'll answer most any
questions you might have.
> btw, you made a claim about the lethal toxic effects of sugar in humans.
> Not found a figure for that, but in rats, LD50 for sucrose is apparently
> 29.7 g/kg.
>
> <http://www.msmr.org/documents/BFTBToxicology6.pdf>
>
> Rowland.
Okay, here we go. According to this reference
http://www.marshallbrain.com/science/sugar-in-soda.htm a can of soda has 39
grams of sugar. Simple algebra yields a lethal dose of sugar at just over 50
cans of soda.
Now, back to the vitamin pills. Consider the size of a bottle of 100
tablets. Multiply that volume by 10,000 or so (to get into the sixth order
of magnitude). That's how much you'd need to swallow to obtain a lethal
dose. That volume is greater than the volume of your whole body, certainly.
Your wiki reference mentions suicide by salt. It's obviously an obtainable
outcome, even though you earlier dismissed it outright. This whole thing is
about challenging preconceptions.
Lar
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
> Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > > Linda <Indomitab...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > Unfortunately, Â you and other ruthless and unscrupulous individuals
> > > > like you, Â infiltrate support groups and subvert their entire purpose
> > > > by your misusing support groups to hype the propaganda published by
> > > > those who purport to have acquired knowledge about ailments and
> > > > remedies by studying about them.
>
> > > Riiight - so I'm an unscrupulous individual
>
> > Yep!
>
> ... because I think that it's a
> good idea to get some evidence for the safety and efficacy of a
> suggested treatment?
>
> And that makes me unscrupulous?
>
> *YOU* are the person trying to convince someone to BUY and eat chemicals
> to treat a medical condition - despite the fact that you've never
> examined the person, you're not qualified to do so, and you have no data
> at all on the safety or efficacy of the chemicals you think that they
> should buy and consume.
>
> One of us lacks scruples, that's for sure.
>
> What financial gain do you get from increased sales of B-100 complex?
>
> If you get none, why are you pushing it so strongly?
Yet more of your enhanced interrogation tactics?
To date, the ruthless and unscrupulous individuals who have sought to
further their sinister agendas in the forums I subscribe to by
employing interrogation tactics enhanced for cyberspace, have all
been dirty cops, killer cops, unethical psychologists, nutso
nurses, disbarred attorneys, sociopathic social workers, convicted/
lettered/and credibly accused serial child molesters, unconvicted
SMBD'ers and polyamourists who, more often then not, use little boys
and girls in their skits, spouse batterers, etc., ad nauseum.
Which are you?
Linda
McDonnell) wrote:
As I noted in another article, I'm all too familiar with the abusive
interrogation tactics you are employing to suppress discussion which
alt.support.depression.medication and UK.People.support.depression are
chartered for the discussion of because of the overuse of abusive
interrogation tactics on ASD-med et al by a polymorphous parade of
dirty cops, killer cops, unethical psychologists, sociopathic social
workers, convicted/lettered and credibly accused child molesters,
disbarred attorneys, BDSM'ers and Polyamourists who, more often then
not, use little boys and girls in their skits, spouse batterers,
etc. ad nauseum.
If you wish to continue employing abusive interrogation tactics
against subscribers to depression forums, you will have to use your
abusive interrogation tactics against Larry and/or other subscribers
willing to engage you despite your use of abusive interrogation
tactics, as I'm not amongst those who can be coerced into responding
to the ruthless and unscrupulous individuals who squat in depression
forums for the sole purpose of using abusive interrogation tactics to
turn support groups into abuse groups.
Au contraire
I'm amongst those who publish public notices informing ruthless and
unscrupulous individuals who squat in support forums for sinister or
malicious reasons----that their pursuit of communications with yours
truly is unwelcome and unwanted, then, killfile them and never read
or reply to them again.
Rowland McDonnell of Eastham UK you are hereby informed that your
pursuit of communications with yours truly, Linda Gore, of Las Vegas
Nevada is unwelcome and unwanted.
Any further attempt on your part to pursue unwanted and unwelcome
communications with yours truly will be viewed as a violation of the
stringent anti-harassment and antistalking laws which my state of
residence enacted to protect Nevada residents like me from internet
predators like you.
Sincerely,
Linda M. Gore
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Nov. 4, 2008
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> As I noted in another article, I'm all too familiar with the abusive
> interrogation tactics you are employing to suppress discussion
I ask for a link to demonstrate the safety of vitamin B-100 complex.
You accuse me of having a sinister agenda and now you threaten me with
legal action as if I were an internet stalker!
I'm trying to have a discussion - you're the one doing the job of
stopping it.
All I want is for you to provide information on the safety of the drug
you have prescribed for an ill person you've never examined and aren't
qualified to prescribe anything for at all.
You claim that means I've got a sinister agenda, blah, blah, blah. You
get get libellous, offensive, and abusive when I ask you to justify your
claims. Your behaviour towards me is harassing in the extreme. You
have already caused me more than one panic attack (on the other hand,
opening the fridge door can induce a panic attack in me - and you think
I'm making that up, don't you? Well, I'm not. It's what often happens.
No, I don't get to prepare much food these days, yes I do need looking
after, of course I hate this state of affairs).
I am very familiar with the standard screaming bullying tactics you use
any time you are questioned about your claims, in *YOUR* attempt to
supress honest discussion and an honest exchange of ideas. Starting out
by accusing me of having a sinister agenda in response to asking you to
justify your drug prescription is part of your harassing tactics.
All I want is for you to provide information on the safety of the drug
you are suggesting is suitable for a particular ill person.
I strongly object to your abusive, bullying, libellous behaviour towards
me.
Your claims about me are false, offensive, upsetting, and denigrate my
character.
That is as you know a vile and false claim intended to libel me. You
are harassing me with your abusive, libellous posts. I demand that you
stop it.
I find your posts about me to be deeply abusive, personally offensive,
and totally unacceptable.
I have made this reply to defend myself against your abusive and
libellous behaviour towards me.
Your threat[1] against me has caused me to suffer a panic attack.
[snip]
Rowland.
[1] `Any further attempt on your part to pursue unwanted and unwelcome
communications with yours truly will be viewed as a violation of the
stringent anti-harassment and antistalking laws which my state of
residence enacted to protect Nevada residents like me from internet
predators like you.'
I view that as an attempt on the part of a libellous bully - you - to
bully me into silence.
I object to your bullying and libellous attacks against my character on
this newsgroup. If this matter were to reach court, your abusive,
libellous posts in response to me would be used as evidence against you.
A *REPLY* to you made on a public forum to defend myself against the
libels of a malicious abusive bully like yourself cannot possibly be
considered `harassment' or `stalking'. It is merely self-defence
against an unshamed bully - that bully being you.
I suggest you visit a lawyer before offering up threats like this in the
future. You are an internet bully and you're threatening *me* with
legal action? btw, since I'm in the UK and since US national security
is not at risk here, you might find it hard to get me extradited on the
charges you're interested in.
Of course, if US national security were at risk, I could expect at any
minute to be kidnapped by the CIA for imprisonment without trial and
torture...
Rowland McDonnell
I see - no answer, just personal abuse. So you *DO* make money from
making and selling vitamin B-100 complex, yes?
Aside from that, what have we got?
Yet more of your personal abuse? More of your harassment? Yet another
unscrupulous personal attack against someone who has the gall to dare to
question your authority?
Whatever you mean by it, it's also lunatic paranoia on your part. I
assume that when you refer to `enhanced interrogation tactics', what you
really mean is `torture' as used by your government as a matter of
official national policy.
But you see, I've never had any training in torture. Being a fairly
normal person who does not belong to any of the groups you suggest, and
being a Brit, means that you can expect me to have nothing to do with
torture. My government doesn't use torture because it found out a long
time ago that *torture gives you false information* and is therefore a
total waste of time (unless you just enjoy hurting people).
You have totally unfairly accused me of having an unscrupulous agenda
because I think it's a good idea not to prescribe drugs for ill people
unless there is some evidence that the drug is at least *safe*.
When I've pressed you for that information, you decided to launch a
libellous campaign of harassment against me.
That is, I think, `enhanced internet bullying tactics'.
> To date, the ruthless and unscrupulous individuals who have sought to
> further their sinister agendas in the forums I subscribe to by
> employing interrogation tactics enhanced for cyberspace,
The worst unscrupulous individuals I've met out here are petty minded
harassing bullies like you - people who don't give a damn about the
truth, about reality, about libel (unless they feel libelled) and so on.
All you care about is defending your preconceptions. You have formed an
idea about me and it's important for you that that preconception be
`proven right'.
<shrug> You're wrong about me, totally wrong. You need to look at
yourself and realise that you are suffering from the behavioural faults
you attribute to others.
*YOU* use `interrogation tactics enhanced for cyberspace' to further
your sinister agenda. And you do have a sinister agenda: you want
people to give up on science and trust to ignorance and superstitition.
I happen to think, based on years of observation, that your agenda is
harmful to society at large, that you are a social evil, and that people
like you need to be stopped every bit as much as all the rest of the
total bastards you list below.
Oh, I know 'em - and you are *exactly the same* as them.
> have all
> been dirty cops, killer cops, unethical psychologists, nutso
> nurses, disbarred attorneys, sociopathic social workers, convicted/
> lettered/and credibly accused serial child molesters, unconvicted
> SMBD'ers and polyamourists who, more often then not, use little boys
> and girls in their skits, spouse batterers, etc., ad nauseum.
>
> Which are you?
None of the above, of course.
You are a bully of a type I recognise. You are here using bullying
tactics to further your agenda,
Your agenda is to persuade everyone to abandon reason and science for
faith and wishful thinking.
I think that your agenda is bad and harmful.
I strongly object to your abusive harassment of me in this newsgroup,
and I strongly object to your suggestion that I must belong to one of
the above groups simply because I want you to provide evidence of the
safety of the drug prescription you pushed for a sick person you've not
examined and are not qualified to examine in any case.
If it's an `enhanced internet interrogation technique' to ask for
evidence, maybe the CIA should be replaced with academic journal staff?
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> I don't mind having this sort of discussion with you, Rowland. I apologize
> for misspelling your name, earlier.
Larry, do you mind not being so patronising? I mind having this sort of
conversation with anyone - your behaviour is quite extraordinarily
obnoxious.
You attack me as if I were unreasonable if I fail to provide references
for *my* claims. You *demand* that someone like me making a claim about
vitamins and so on provide references for such claims.
But you've got a different standard for yourself, haven't you?
You've been attacking me as if I were unreasonable for asking *you* to
provide references for *your* claims.
You claim to be an authority.
On what basis do you claim that authority?
I'm interested in information. I don't trust your authority - you have
no authority to my mind. You decided to get personally abusive when I
wanted confirmation of your claims.
That's not honest debate: that's Yank behaviour, that is. But I see a
`ca' email address - ain't that Canada, where people are supposed to be
more civilized?
> In this case, you're engaged with comprehending the material. Very early on,
> when I supplied references, you didn't check them.
But that is not the case, is it? You are, as they say, `being
economical with the actualite' (but with an accent).
If you've provided a single reference for the safety of vitamin B-100
complex, I don't recall it.
If I'm wrong - /repost the link/.
If I'm right, you'll just post some more personal abuse.
I know what I expect to read from you next. Let's see if my guess about
you is right, shall we?
> Later, when I supplied a
> specific paper that comprehensively addressed the risks and benefits of
> vitamin D, you later acknowledged not reading the whole thing.
<puzzled>
You don't seem to have understood that what I'm concerned with here is
the safety of vitamin B-100 complex, which obviously isn't covered in a
paper on vitamin D.
btw, it wasn't `comprehensive' - `extensive', perhaps, but it certainly
didn't cover everything that needed covering. It was very light on
statistical interpretation, for example.
(since I've been harangued for possessing a science degree, I might as
well admit that I do have such a degree - but it's in physics, not one
of the woolly subjects. Some decades ago, but I can still do a bit of
maths.)
I did not `acknowledge' not reading the whole thing: I told you that I'd
not read all of it carefully. I skimmed it all, read some parts
carefully.
You expect other people to provide references to back up any factual
claim they make here. But you also expect people to accept your
authority and for them to look up the references for any claim *you*
make.
How would you describe that behaviour of yours?
> I can't make
> you learn something.
[snip]
Ah! - you're here to engage in personal abuse.
I could engage with you on the same level.
But I'm in this thread because I'm concerned about the safety of Vitamin
B-100 complex.
You claim to be an authority whose assertion that it's safe can be
trusted.
I questioned your authority. You decided to engage in personal abuse
rather than address the facts with somem references.
<shrug>
So it goes.
Larry Hoover
"Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
> Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> You attack me as if I were unreasonable if I fail to provide references
> for *my* claims. You *demand* that someone like me making a claim about
> vitamins and so on provide references for such claims.
I made no such demands. If you can't keep clear what happened from how you
thought it happened, how can we find a common ground? Here's the dialogue:
You:
> I've read of a study which showed that people who take more than one a
> day of the one-a-day multivitamin preparations die younger on average
> than those who do not.
Me:
Even if that observation is correct (it would help if you gave references,
so others could consider the information that you have considered)...
And I explained and re-explained that I was interested in a reference for
that study. I do not generally supply references for generally accepted
science. And yet, I did so, and you said you hadn't looked. In reply to
repost of basic references to nutritional science, this is your reply:
"Since I have not in fact done any sort of research in chemistry or
biology...."
What would you have me believe? And how (and why) should I overcome that?
> But you've got a different standard for yourself, haven't you?
>
> You've been attacking me as if I were unreasonable for asking *you* to
> provide references for *your* claims.
The mere fact that you can come up with what seems to you to be a reasonable
question does not mean that I intend to jump to it and demonstrate the error
in your thinking, or address basic questions easily answered by authorities
you might trust (the basic references I provided, and suggested you seek out
for yourself). You thrice asked for evidence from triple blind studies. None
exists, because that methodology does not exist. Nor have double blind long
term studies been conducted, into either safety or efficacy. My explaining
that to you has had no impact; you continue to ask for what I have said does
not exist.
> You claim to be an authority.
>
> On what basis do you claim that authority?
I have not ever described myself in that way.
>> In this case, you're engaged with comprehending the material. Very early
>> on,
>> when I supplied references, you didn't check them.
>
> But that is not the case, is it? You are, as they say, `being
> economical with the actualite' (but with an accent).
You said you did no research, in reply to my suggestion that you do so.
Should I not have believed you?
> If you've provided a single reference for the safety of vitamin B-100
> complex, I don't recall it.
>
> If I'm wrong - /repost the link/.
I reiterate, there is no such link of which I am aware. There is no link to
even so much as a case report of toxicity/safety concerns, either. To my
knowledge. Take it or leave it.
I supplied safety information on a specific B vitamin, folic acid, as a
model to consider. I contextualized the exposures by comparing them with
sugar and salt (which is already being consumed at toxic levels, vis a vis
hypertension). I provided links to facilitate your similar research into
other of the B vitamins.
>> Later, when I supplied a
>> specific paper that comprehensively addressed the risks and benefits of
>> vitamin D, you later acknowledged not reading the whole thing.
>
> <puzzled>
>
> You don't seem to have understood that what I'm concerned with here is
> the safety of vitamin B-100 complex, which obviously isn't covered in a
> paper on vitamin D.
YOU raised issues with vitamin D, without references: "Vitamin D is famous
for killing people stone dead - don't eat polar bear
liver, for example." And then when I refuted it, with references, you still
were unaccepting.
Me:
> The article was referenced, Roland. With hyperlinks!
You:
So?
I dare say that even doing as you asked elicited nothing more than a
dismissive remark, and a subjective perception of ultimate futility. To say
nothing at all of the risk that you or I might ever eat polar bear liver.
> btw, it wasn't `comprehensive' - `extensive', perhaps, but it certainly
> didn't cover everything that needed covering. It was very light on
> statistical interpretation, for example.
It appeared to address any question I had seen you raise. Effects of acute
vs. chronic exposure, adverse effect thresholds, safety factors.
> (since I've been harangued for possessing a science degree, I might as
> well admit that I do have such a degree - but it's in physics, not one
> of the woolly subjects. Some decades ago, but I can still do a bit of
> maths.)
>
> I did not `acknowledge' not reading the whole thing: I told you that I'd
> not read all of it carefully. I skimmed it all, read some parts
> carefully.
Is that supposed to be a real distinction?
> You expect other people to provide references to back up any factual
> claim they make here. But you also expect people to accept your
> authority and for them to look up the references for any claim *you*
> make.
For about the tenth time, I prefer to see references when specific
papers/studies are mentioned.
>> I can't make
>> you learn something.
>
> [snip]
>
> Ah! - you're here to engage in personal abuse.
>
> I could engage with you on the same level.
It is my perception that you have, sir.
> But I'm in this thread because I'm concerned about the safety of Vitamin
> B-100 complex.
>
> You claim to be an authority whose assertion that it's safe can be
> trusted.
I have given my personal opinion, and claimed no authority, beyond stating
that I have studied nutrition in depth.
> I questioned your authority. You decided to engage in personal abuse
> rather than address the facts with somem references.
Rather telling that you might say that after I just provided you with
numerous links and explanations as to how to find specific information. And
moreover, that you entirely snipped that far lengthier segment of my post,
without any comment whatsoever.
Good day, sir. You may now have the last word.
Lar
Rowland McDonnell
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Larry Hoover <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> > But you've got a different standard for yourself, haven't you?
> >
> > You've been attacking me as if I were unreasonable for asking *you* to
> > provide references for *your* claims.
>
> The mere fact that you can come up with what seems to you to be a reasonable
> question does not mean that I intend to jump to it and demonstrate the error
> in your thinking,
No, but you are willing to jump to it and write reams and reams of
bullshit that's critical of me and insulting towards me, aren't you?
Plenty of time for personal abuse, no time at all for dealing with the
facts.
[snip]
> > You claim to be an authority.
> >
> > On what basis do you claim that authority?
>
> I have not ever described myself in that way.
But you /behave/ as if you're an authority, thus providing an *implied*
description of yourself as an authority.
> >> In this case, you're engaged with comprehending the material. Very early
> >> on, when I supplied references, you didn't check them.
> >
> > But that is not the case, is it? You are, as they say, `being
> > economical with the actualite' (but with an accent).
>
> You said you did no research, in reply to my suggestion that you do so.
> Should I not have believed you?
But that has nothing whatever to do with your claim that you provided
references - which you now admit you did not do.
> > If you've provided a single reference for the safety of vitamin B-100
> > complex, I don't recall it.
> >
> > If I'm wrong - /repost the link/.
>
> I reiterate, there is no such link of which I am aware.
So when you claimed to have provided references to back up your claim
that B-100 complex is safe, you were lying?
[snip]
> I supplied safety information on a specific B vitamin, folic acid, as a
> model to consider.
A model is something that can predict the future. Folic acid can do
nothing but sit there, engaging in the occasional chemical reaction and
suchlike. What you call `safety' information on folic acid (I recall
data on claimed toxicity levels, which data struck me as untrustworthy)
in isolation cannot tell us anything at all about the safety of a
preparation including folic acid *and other components*.
You're being sneaky again, aren't you? There's no `model' to consider -
there's just some not-very-relevant information.
Folic acid is just one chemical. Studying it in isolation can tell
no-one anything about the reaction of the human body to vitamin B-100
complex over the long term.
That can only be studied by studying the response of the human body to
vitamin B-100 complex - not its individual components in isolation, but
the mixture.
[snip]
Now, I'm not interested in the last word. I just want the facts. You
want to demonstrate that I'm a wanker.
Fair enough - you do that.
I'd still like to know if there's any real evidence that Vitamin B-100
complex is safe in the long term.
If there hasn't been a long-term large-scale study, then we have no
evidence that the stuff is safe. And I suspect that there hasn't been a
long-term large-scale study. Most chemicals prepared for our
consumption are inadequately tested, be they for food or for medicine.
Rowland.
(who does eat organic as much as practical and really doesn't trust
anything much at all but is sure he'd rather eat shit than dioxins or
plutonium)