OT. Folic acid: improves blood flow in peripheral arterial disease
All-Seeing-I
plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
compared with placebo,"
homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
all disease and damage to the body.
--
Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
thanks.
The Alll Seeing I
spintronic
> "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> compared with placebo,"
>
>
> homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> all disease and damage to the body.
>
> --
> Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> thanks.
>
> The Alll Seeing I
This study means squat.
I could pay 100 miners to "dig my railroad", and then;
1) Kick one of them in the balls' but say "dig, or your fired".
2) Pay the laziest bastard 10 million times as much as everyone else,
just to get his ass in gear.
3) Have 99 average employees, but hire 'John Henry' for 0.1% of
everyone elses pay.
You tell me, how a scientist, would publish this paper?
spintronic
> plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> compared with placebo,"
>
>
> homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> all disease and damage to the body.
>
> --
> Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> thanks.
>
> The Alll Seeing I
Unless of course you have someone close to you with plasma
homocysteine?
In that case, I'm sorry. I thought it was just another thread.
They need; vitamins B6 and B12, green veg, and movement. (As per
doctors recommendations)
I read about a case once, wher a 65 year old patient had stage 2
hypertension; systolic > 168
This was in the 80's, (There was no medication).
The doctor urged him that movement reduces BP.
The first few weeks, he walked around the block.
Then he brisk walked,
Then he increased his distance,
Then he ran
The article finished, he was 87, and running marathons.
Start slow. Build up, gain momentum, and let the body do what it's
designed to do.
If I upset you or said something out of line, I apologise.
I'm just glad there is a creator who will fulfill his promise.
chris thompson
OOPS
Spin was too stoned to see that a fellow creationist posted this.
So he had to post the silly BS below.
Gee, it really sucks when you have to reverse positions based on who
you're responding to, huh?
Evolutionists don't need to worry about that, you know. None of that
"Oh what a tangled web we weave" stuff on the evolution side.
Hehe keep it up guys- the lurkers luv ya
Chris
spintronic
> On Nov 11, 8:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Nov, 01:04, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > > compared with placebo,"
>
> > >http://www.lef.org/newsletter/2009/0911_Folic-Acid-Supplementation-Im...
>
> > > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > > --
> > > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > > thanks.
>
> > > The Alll Seeing I
>
> > This study means squat.
>
> > I could pay 100 miners to "dig my railroad", and then;
>
> > 1) Kick one of them in the balls' but say "dig, or your fired".
> > 2) Pay the laziest bastard 10 million times as much as everyone else,
> > just to get his ass in gear.
> > 3) Have 99 average employees, but hire 'John Henry' for 0.1% of
> > everyone elses pay.
>
> > You tell me, how a scientist, would publish this paper?
> OOPS
>
> Spin was too stoned to see that a fellow creationist posted this.
>
> So he had to post the silly BS below.
No, both of the above are correct.
1) Was what I think of "studies, that find....."
2) Was my honest genuine advice to a friend.
And my advice, has no religious boundaries.
A, ( T.O poster), once had heart problems a few years ago,
I advised him to take plant sterols, even though we hated each other.
I gave him some other advice too.
> Gee, it really sucks when you have to reverse positions based on who
> you're responding to, huh?
I guess it would.
You'll have to tell us how it feels,
Once we find out who ASI is talking about, and find a way to help him.
Trials, new drugs, advice, etc etc etc
> Evolutionists don't need to worry about that, you know. None of that
> "Oh what a tangled web we weave" stuff on the evolution side.
I have an idea.
I obviously can't be arsed arguing with you, but you feel a need to
wack off.
So you go over there, why I try to help.
> Hehe keep it up guys- the lurkers luv ya
My guess, is they don't luv u.
spintronic
> plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> compared with placebo,"
>
>
> homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> all disease and damage to the body.
>
> --
> Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> thanks.
>
> The Alll Seeing I
Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
Nashton
Another extremely useful study *not* brought to you by the ToE.
Couldn't resist;)
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Creationsit can disagree with each other.
Evolutionsts cant. You guys are like the borg collective.
THAT is what the lurkers ROFL about Chrissy-Poo
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > compared with placebo,"
>
>
> > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > --
> > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > thanks.
>
> > The Alll Seeing I
>
> Another extremely useful study *not* brought to you by the ToE.
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh... EACTLY
The ancients knew what foods to eat to stay healthy.
No ToE needed... [chuckle]
Caranx latus
<snip>
>> Spin was too stoned to see that a fellow creationist posted this.
>>
>> So he had to post the silly BS below.
>>
>> Gee, it really sucks when you have to reverse positions based on who
>> you're responding to, huh?
>>
>> Evolutionists don't need to worry about that, you know. None of that
>> "Oh what a tangled web we weave" stuff on the evolution side.
>>
>> Hehe keep it up guys- the lurkers luv ya
>>
>> Chris
>
> Creationsit can disagree with each other.
>
> Evolutionsts cant. You guys are like the borg collective.
>
> THAT is what the lurkers ROFL about Chrissy-Poo
You know what the lurkers think, do you? Are they supporting you in
email then?
Burkhard
Lucy Wills was one of the ancients? 'Cause people at her time for sure
did not know about this, which is why she studied miscarriages.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
science wanting to play God to Man.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:a17a9889-d89b-495c...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Much ancient superstition has been discarded because of the objectivity of
science wanting to find real truth.
.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:a17a9889-d89b-495c...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
So, I presume that next time you need physician you'll try to find one
who bases his diagnosis and treatments on the works of Galen.
Personally, I'd prefer one who has learned about medicine from the
scientific study of disease and treatment.
Still, it's your funeral.
RF
P.S. Let us know how the cupping and bleeding goes.
Burkhard
Then why did she find the highest incidence rate of miscarriages due
to Vitamin deficits in the rural poor in India, whose lives was
untouched by science, but pretty much influenced by "ancient texts")?
Kermit
Other than a case study in insanity, what would be the point of this
so-called paper? What associations are being looked for. what are the
controls, what hypothesis is being tested?
Your larger point seems to be that random behavior produces
comprehensible data. Perhaps you could apply some of your advanced
math skills to this research project of yours, make up some data
points, and explain what the researcher would be looking for.
Kermit
Kermit
It would have been easier to simply say that you don't understand
science.
>
> 2) Was my honest genuine advice to a friend.
>
Like Madman then, you are an empirical nihilist.
> And my advice, has no religious boundaries.
True. One need not be religious to be an empirical nihilist. Post-
modernism, for example, is not typically associated with Christian
Fundamentalism, although they have more in common I think, then either
would be comfortable admitting.
>
> A, ( T.O poster), once had heart problems a few years ago,
> I advised him to take plant sterols, even though we hated each other.
> I gave him some other advice too.
Why would you say this if you think that studies do not find anything?
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "I think that...".
>
> > Gee, it really sucks when you have to reverse positions based on who
> > you're responding to, huh?
>
> I guess it would.
>
On the other hand, when one holds no position but disdain, one rarely
has to reverse positions.
> You'll have to tell us how it feels,
>
> Once we find out who ASI is talking about, and find a way to help him.
I suspect he just thinks that he has found science which supports his
position on one particular ("Nutrients are good for you!"), which
soemhow vindicates everything he has said. so evolutionary science is
wrong, therefore Jesus, and especially, he's special.
>
> Trials, new drugs, advice, etc etc etc
>
Verbs! For the love of God, give us verbs!
> > Evolutionists don't need to worry about that, you know. None of that
> > "Oh what a tangled web we weave" stuff on the evolution side.
>
> I have an idea.
>
> I obviously can't be arsed arguing with you, but you feel a need to
> wack off.
>
> So you go over there, why I try to help.
Umm... no thank you.
>
> > Hehe keep it up guys- the lurkers luv ya
>
> My guess, is they don't luv u.
Kermit
Kermit
We don't kill each other when we disagree; that's why you don't notice
it.
>
> Evolutionsts cant. You guys are like the borg collective.
If we come to a consensus on a subject, it's because the verifiable
evidence points that way. When the evidence is still ambiguous,
disagreements are possible, but a position cannot be held with a high
degree of confidence.
Since religious doctrines are not grounded in verifiable evidence,
they can - and do - spin off in all conceivable directions.
>
> THAT is what the lurkers ROFL about Chrissy-Poo
Still just making stuff up, eh?
Kermit
Kermit
One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
Kermit
Kermit
Divine revelation. There is a world of lurkers out there, more real
than the electronic world of usenet, but unfortunately, we have a
crippled perception gene, and cannot see what Madman sees :(
And no, there is no verifiable evidence. They are lurkers, and have no
mundane physical or electronic contact with us. But Madman can see
them. If you want evidence, I'm sure that he can read an ancient
thread for us and make up an interpretation.
Kermit
Kermit
Yes, couch potatoes should be patient, but persistent.
>
> If I upset you or said something out of line, I apologise.
>
> I'm just glad there is a creator who will fulfill his promise.
I would say all fruits and veggies, plus lean meats, plus vigorous
exercise. What our ancestors ate, in other words, for the last couple
of million years.
Damn these winter holiday office gluttonfests.
Kermit
Kermit
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > compared with placebo,"
>
>
> > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > --
> > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > thanks.
>
> > The Alll Seeing I
>
> Another extremely useful study *not* brought to you by the ToE.
> Couldn't resist;)
The ToE is compatible with all studies, even if most of them are
irrelevant. All scientific theories must be compatible with all
available data. Sometimes of course there are minor issues, but the
theory can usually be tweaked to accommodate the data or the data
turns out to be poorly done. If the problem persists, the theory ends
up being dropped.
Many studies make sense in light of our evolutionary history, even if
the study makes no mention of it. Why do we need vitamin C, but dogs
don't?
Kermit
Kermit
So... people could survive on what they were eating when any
particular ancient text was written? How is this impressive?
"Survive", BTW, is not "thrive". We cannot live on milk and honey, for
example.
Kermit
spintronic
> On Nov 11, 5:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Nov, 01:04, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > > compared with placebo,"
>
> > >http://www.lef.org/newsletter/2009/0911_Folic-Acid-Supplementation-Im...
>
> > > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > > --
> > > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > > thanks.
>
> > > The Alll Seeing I
>
> > This study means squat.
.
> > I could pay 100 miners to "dig my railroad", and then;
>
> > 1) Kick one of them in the balls' but say "dig, or your fired".
> > 2) Pay the laziest bastard 10 million times as much as everyone else,
> > just to get his ass in gear.
> > 3) Have 99 average employees, but hire 'John Henry' for 0.1% of
> > everyone elses pay.
>
> > You tell me, how a scientist, would publish this paper?
>
> Other than a case study in insanity, what would be the point of this
> so-called paper?
Exactly.
> What associations are being looked for.
Who is the better worker.
> what are the controls,
"Dig".
> what hypothesis is being tested?
That conclusions of complex interactions aren't necesseraly as clear
as the Data recovered.
In my scenario.
I haven't told the foreman what I have done.
The foreman looks at the production of all 100 employees.
For some reason 3 show increased productivity.
His conclusion: he promotes them & increases their pay.
Yet only 1 deserves the pay increase.
His interpritation of the data was correct, his conclusions weren't.
raven1
>Much ancient knowledge has been lost
How do you know that?
Kermit
Yes, yes, It is arrogant to find out how the world works. But it is
not arrogant to claim that you are infallible, you have special
perception we do not, and you know more than people who have spent 30
years in a field?
Creationists are very good at projection.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:28:21 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
>
Hints. Intuition. Imagination. Random associations and streams of
consciousness. Wishful thinking.You know - *reliable methods. Not this
pathetic "verifiable data, see if there's anything wrong with it"
nonsense that science depends on.
>
> >because of the arrogance of
> >science wanting to play God to Man.
Kermit
spintronic
.
> It would have been easier to simply say that you don't understand
> science.
Why would I say something silly like that?
> > 2) Was my honest genuine advice to a friend.
>
> Like Madman then, you are an empirical nihilist.
See, now your conclusions are wrong.
> > A, ( T.O poster), once had heart problems a few years ago,
> > I advised him to take plant sterols, even though we hated each other.
> > I gave him some other advice too.
>
> Why would you say this if you think that studies do not find anything?
> Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "I think that...".
The link between taking plant sterols & reduction of cholesterol is to
say the least;
Overwhelming.
The above "so called" study had; How did it put it? "133 peripheral
artery disease patients ".
> > > Gee, it really sucks when you have to reverse positions based on who
> > > you're responding to, huh?
>
> > I guess it would.
>
> On the other hand, when one holds no position but disdain, one rarely
> has to reverse positions.
>
> > You'll have to tell us how it feels,
>
> > Once we find out who ASI is talking about, and find a way to help him.
>
> I suspect he just thinks that he has found science which supports his
> position on one particular ("Nutrients are good for you!"), which
> soemhow vindicates everything he has said. so evolutionary science is
> wrong, therefore Jesus, and especially, he's special.
That last bit made no sence at all.
> > Trials, new drugs, advice, etc etc etc
>
> Verbs! For the love of God, give us verbs!
He needs drugs not herbs. :)
> > > Evolutionists don't need to worry about that, you know. None of that
> > > "Oh what a tangled web we weave" stuff on the evolution side.
>
> > I have an idea.
>
> > I obviously can't be arsed arguing with you, but you feel a need to
> > wack off.
>
> > So you go over there, why I try to help.
>
> Umm... no thank you.
Why are you refusing to go to the corner I told chris too?
Ernest Major
<46101131-9291-4187...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
>
>One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
>fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
>demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
>
out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
You mean foods like Sugar of Lead, used by the ancient Romans as a
sweetener?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate
"The ancient Romans, who had few sweeteners besides honey, would boil must
(grape juice) in lead pots to produce a reduced sugar syrup called defrutum,
concentrated again into sapa. This syrup was used to sweeten wine, and to
sweeten and preserve fruit. It is possible that lead acetate or other lead
compounds leaching into the syrup might have caused lead poisoning in anyone
consuming it."
DJT
Inez
How do you tell ancient knowledge that was lost from ancient knowledge
that was never there? What is your method?
Mike Painter
>>
>> Lucy Wills was one of the ancients? 'Cause people at her time for
>> sure
>> did not know about this, which is why she studied miscarriages.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
> science wanting to play God to Man.
How do you know this if it was lost?
Mike Painter
>
> "Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
> science wanting to play God to Man."
>
> Much ancient superstition has been discarded because of the
> objectivity of science wanting to find real truth.
>
today.
Mike Lyle
>>
>> Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
>> science wanting to play God to Man.-
>
> How do you tell ancient knowledge that was lost from ancient knowledge
> that was never there? What is your method?
Sounds like a job for Rumsfeld. It's not the unknown ancient knowns or
the known ancient unknowns or the unknown ancient unknowns we need to
worry about so much as the known ancient knowns they know, but that just
ain't so.
--
Mike.
spintronic
> In message
> <46101131-9291-4187-b700-45a7d5da9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> writes>> Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
.
.
> >One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
> >fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
> >demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
>
> Aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid, so his advice boils down to "cut
> out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
You TWIT.
Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
My advice to you is shut it.
richardal...@googlemail.com
..because mammals are able to synthesise it metabolically. In plants,
it's the precursor to several essential amino acids, which means that
it's difficult to avoid it if you eat plants.
> My advice to you is shut it.
My advice to you it to get an education.
It's rather better advice than yours, but I have no doubt that you
prefer to remain ignorant rather than take it.
RF
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because their lives were untouched by vedic medicine as well.
It takes longer to get a medical degree in India then it does to
become a western medical doctor.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ancient Chineese, Indian, American Indian medicine was curing people
long before western medicine was around. You should really try and
learn.
Kermit
They were also killing people. I've read all the hippy books, too(1).
They're light on footnotes.
Did you notice that you didn't answer his question? You don't know why
you think any of this stuff, do you?
(1) At least up to about 1970. But that's OK, because it's ancient
knowledge, so they haven't learned anything lately, right?
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> Then why did she find the highest incidence rate of miscarriages due
>> to Vitamin deficits in the rural poor in India, whose lives was
>> untouched by science, but pretty much influenced by "ancient
>> texts")?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Because their lives were untouched by vedic medicine as well.
>
> It takes longer to get a medical degree in India then it does to
> become a western medical doctor.
I already showed you that was false.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 3:28 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 7:41 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Nov, 13:15, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 12, 5:14 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > > > > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > > > > > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > > > > > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > > > > > compared with placebo,"
>
> > > > > >http://www.lef.org/newsletter/2009/0911_Folic-Acid-Supplementation-Im...
>
> > > > > > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > > > > > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > > > > > thanks.
>
> > > > > > The Alll Seeing I
>
> > > > > Another extremely useful study *not* brought to you by the ToE.
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > > The ancients knew what foods to eat to stay healthy.
>
> > > > No ToE needed... [chuckle]
>
> > > Lucy Wills was one of the ancients? 'Cause people at her time for sure
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > science wanting to play God to Man.
>
> who bases his diagnosis and treatments on the works of Galen.
>
> Personally, I'd prefer one who has learned about medicine from the
> scientific study of disease and treatment.
>
> Still, it's your funeral.
>
> RF
>
> P.S. Let us know how the cupping and bleeding goes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey. I have a healthy respect for modern medicine. The problem is
modern medicine has no respect for anything that came before it.
Even though what came before it has a track record of success.
All-Seeing-I
I am actually shocked at some of your replies as of late. Would you
like some stats on deaths that have resulted from moden medicine? Or
would a recap of recent laws suits be enough?
>
> Did you notice that you didn't answer his question? You don't know why
> you think any of this stuff, do you?
>
> (1) At least up to about 1970. But that's OK, because it's ancient
> knowledge, so they haven't learned anything lately, right?
I have a healthy respect for modern medicine K.
The problem is modern medicine does not have a healthy respect for
anything that has come before it. Many modern medicines have their
origins in ancient remedies of plants, leafs and roots.
Also. Modern medicine has forgot how to treat the entire person. Which
includes their spiritual side. Fortunately though, modern medicine is
beginning to show signs of getting back to it's roots and realize
that.
Many oncologists are beginning to recommend or discourage specific
foods and herbs as part of their treatment. They also instruct the
patient to focus on anything that brings a positive mind set. God is
positive de jure in people's lives; Those that believe in him anyway.
The rest of you are out in the cold it seems.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> P.S. Let us know how the cupping and bleeding goes.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey. I have a healthy respect for modern medicine. The problem is
> modern medicine has no respect for anything that came before it.
That's because what "came before it" was usually fatal to the patient.
>
> Even though what came before it has a track record of success.
Success for the undertaker, that is.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh puleeze... Where is Chris? You two make a good drama queen act
All-Seeing-I
In the catagory of "It matters, but it really does not matter"....
> The ToE is compatible with all studies, even if most of them are
> irrelevant.
They are compatable but irrelvant?
Is that one of those "Zen Riddles" I have read about?
spintronic
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:36 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Nov, 17:29, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> In message
> > > <46101131-9291-4187-b700-45a7d5da9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> writes>> Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
>
.
.
> > > >One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
> > > >fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
> > > >demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
http://beebleblog.com/2009/08/26/is-your-low-calorie-zero-sugar-drink-dangerous/
> > > Aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid, so his advice boils down to "cut
> > > out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
>
> > You TWIT.
>
> > Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
>
> ..because mammals are able to synthesise it metabolically. In plants,
> it's the precursor to several essential amino acids, which means that
> it's difficult to avoid it if you eat plants.
6000 foods contain aspartic acid
Leaving plenty of other stuff to eat.
They're all labelled "E951"
Here is a list of foods highest in aspartic acid
http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000092000000000000000.html
It does not take a genius to avoid these foods, or eat the ones that
have the least e951 content
> > My advice to you is shut it.
>
> My advice to you it to get an education.
I spent 30 seconds researching this disease,and came up with a
solution you couldn't find in 100 years.
Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine, we cant synthesise
methionine, plants & microbes do.
They synthesize methionine via a pathway that uses both aspartic acid
and cysteine.
Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
Less methonine = Less homocysteine.
A rather intensive google reveals.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/66002415/abstract
> It's rather better advice than yours,
Nar, not really.
> but I have no doubt that you prefer to remain ignorant rather than take it.
If the choice's are listen to you, remain ignorant.
The latter leaves one at a significant advantage.
Better to have an empty cup, than one full of shitwater.
Mike Painter
"In nineteenth-century Chicago, a medical degree was not always needed to
practice medicine. No licensing laws yet governed medical practice, and
doctors commonly learned medicine by apprenticeship or by reading medical
texts. Doctors who had obtained formal medical training in eastern medical
colleges founded similar schools in their newly adopted city. These schools
enabled local youth to afford medical education and provided founders and
faculty with income from students' fees while enhancing their prestige and
reputations, which helped them attract paying patients.
Chicago's first medical school, Rush Medical College, was founded by Daniel
Brainard in 1843. Like most medical schools in the nation, it offered two
16-week terms. Instruction each week consisted of four daily lectures. The
second term merely repeated the first term's lectures.
16 x 5 x 4 = 320
If the classes werer two hours long then 640 hours.
A paramdic today has more time invested and *much* less knowledge than the
typical RN, and the RN has less than the NP and the NP has less than a GP.
Ernest Major
>> > Aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid, so his advice boils down to "cut
>> > out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
>>
>> You TWIT.
>>
>> Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
>>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<f1064caf-da79-4c74...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>On Nov 12, 10:36�pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 Nov, 17:29, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> In message
>> > <46101131-9291-4187-b700-45a7d5da9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> writes>> Cut all foods out
>> >that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
>>
>> .
>> .
>>
>> > >One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
>> > >fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
>> > >demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
>>
>> > Aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid, so his advice boils down to "cut
>> > out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
>>
>> You TWIT.
>>
>> Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
>>
>
>..because mammals are able to synthesise it metabolically. In plants,
>it's the precursor to several essential amino acids, which means that
>it's difficult to avoid it if you eat plants.
On second thoughts refined sugar and alcohol are allowed by his diet.
Maybe margarine as well. So he can consume calories - but the
>
>> My advice to you is shut it.
>
>My advice to you it to get an education.
>
>It's rather better advice than yours, but I have no doubt that you
>prefer to remain ignorant rather than take it.
>
>
>RF
>
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
Rubbish!
> The problem is
> modern medicine has no respect for anything that came before it.
More rubbish! What scientific medicine does is to evaluate the
effectiveness of older cures.
>
> Even though what came before it has a track record of success.
And how do you evaluate that track record if you reject the use of
evidence?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 12 Nov, 22:49, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 10:36 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Nov, 17:29, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> In message
> > > > <46101131-9291-4187-b700-45a7d5da9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> writes>> Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
>
> .
> .
>
> > > > >One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
> > > > >fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
> > > > >demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
>
>
> > > > Aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid, so his advice boils down to "cut
> > > > out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
>
> > > You TWIT.
>
> > > Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
>
> > ..because mammals are able to synthesise it metabolically. In plants,
> > it's the precursor to several essential amino acids, which means that
> > it's difficult to avoid it if you eat plants.
>
> 6000 foods contain aspartic acid
>
> Leaving plenty of other stuff to eat.
>
> They're all labelled "E951"
Only if it's an additive. That's why it's an "E" number.
It is found naturally in plants. Plants don't grow with E numbers
printed on them.
>
> Here is a list of foods highest in aspartic acid
>
> http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000092000000000000000.html
>
> It does not take a genius to avoid these foods, or eat the ones that
> have the least e951 content
On the other hand, it takes an idiot to think that plants come with an
E number printed on them, and that if we avoid ingesting an amino acid
which our metabolism synthesises all by itself we will obtain health
benefits.
>
> > > My advice to you is shut it.
>
> > My advice to you it to get an education.
>
> I spent 30 seconds researching this disease,and came up with a
> solution you couldn't find in 100 years.
Perhaps you should have spent rather longer than 30 seconds in that
case.
>
> Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine, we cant synthesise
> methionine, plants & microbes do.
Well bully for you. However we *can* synthesise aspartic acid.
>
> They synthesize methionine via a pathway that uses both aspartic acid
...which our bodies synthesise...
> and cysteine.
>
> Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
Why should we want to ingest less of an essential amino acid?
>
> Less methonine = Less homocysteine.
>
> A rather intensive google reveals.
>
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/66002415/abstract
Which, if you understood the science involved, you would realise
doesn't support your argument at all. This refers to research which
has shown that some genetic defects create abnormally high levels of
homocysteine in the blood. It does not link ingestion of asparic acid
to increased levels of homocysteine. Our bodies are usually rather
good at regulating their own metabolism.
>
> > It's rather better advice than yours,
>
> Nar, not really.
>
> > but I have no doubt that you prefer to remain ignorant rather than take it.
>
> If the choice's are listen to you, remain ignorant.
>
> The latter leaves one at a significant advantage.
>
> Better to have an empty cup, than one full of shitwater.
...and once again you resort to silly insults rather than learn
anything.
RF
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Hey. I have a healthy respect for modern medicine. The problem is
>modern medicine has no respect for anything that came before it.
>
>Even though what came before it has a poor track record of success.
Post corrected without charge.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
They do, but they are much better because now they are refined.
>
>Also. Modern medicine has forgot how to treat the entire person. Which
>includes their spiritual side.
Please provide evidence for this claimed "spiritual side".
Oops. Forgot, you don't do this evidence thing.
> Fortunately though, modern medicine is
>beginning to show signs of getting back to it's roots and realize
>that.
>
>Many oncologists are beginning to recommend or discourage specific
>foods and herbs as part of their treatment. They also instruct the
>patient to focus on anything that brings a positive mind set. God is
>positive de jure in people's lives;
The hell he is. Evil personified.
> Those that believe in him anyway.
>
>The rest of you are out in the cold it seems.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I accept all evidence grounded in real science and that is germane and
foundational to the subject.
Which leaves evolution OUT
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh lookie folks! My one trick poney does his stalking routine
again
and again
and again
and again
and over and over.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Not according to the people who actually *know* anything about the
subject.
What do you know that all those scientists don't?
Or do you think that your ignorance trumps years of study?
RF
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:a1cd72a6-670b-4300...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
foundational to the subject.
Which leaves evolution OUT"
I see, in your mind anything not supported by "biblical data" is not real
science, right?
.
Ye Old One
Knowing something is false does not stop a creationist from telling it
as if it were true.
--
Bob.
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest
imaginary friend.
Paul J Gans
Rush Medical is still around. A cousin of mine was a professor
of physiology there for a fair number of years.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
spintronic
Did I say they did?
> > Here is a list of foods highest in aspartic acid
>
> >http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000092000000000000000.html
>
> > It does not take a genius to avoid these foods, or eat the ones that
> > have the least e951 content
>
> On the other hand, it takes an idiot to think that plants come with an
> E number printed on them,
Are you a retard?
Entry number 1) on the website I listed.
1) Swamp cabbage, (skunk cabbage), raw Aspartic acid: 6843mg
There are 998 other listings.
Ah, you must be one of the retards, when I said;
"It does not take a genius to avoid these foods".
> and that if we avoid ingesting an amino acid
> which our metabolism synthesises all by itself we will obtain health
> benefits.
Do you avoid foods high in cholesterol?
Your logic is at rock bottom about now.
> > > > My advice to you is shut it.
>
> > > My advice to you it to get an education.
>
> > I spent 30 seconds researching this disease,and came up with a
> > solution you couldn't find in 100 years.
>
> Perhaps you should have spent rather longer than 30 seconds in that
> case.
Why? To be thick like you?
> > Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine, we cant synthesise
> > methionine, plants & microbes do.
>
> Well bully for you. However we *can* synthesise aspartic acid.
And cholesterol. I know, lets all pig out on macky Dee's.
> > They synthesize methionine via a pathway that uses both aspartic acid
>
> ...which our bodies synthesise...
So if you have a fire that can't exist without oxygen, and I say "turn
off the oxygen cylinders".
Your argument is:
"What's the point? Theres already oxygen in the atmosphere?"
Nice logic there.
> > Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
>
> Why should we want to ingest less of an essential amino acid?
If you have elevated Homocysteine, guaranteed you have elevated
methionine,
As Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine,
And Homocysteine can be recycled into methionine.
Cut down foods high in asparic Aspartic acid, you also cut down the
methionine, you then cut down the Homocysteine.
30 seconds, the logic is that simple.
richardal...@googlemail.com
And do you think that swamp cabbage has "E951" printed on the side?
>
> There are 998 other listings.
>
> Ah, you must be one of the retards, when I said;
>
> "It does not take a genius to avoid these foods".
>
> > and that if we avoid ingesting an amino acid
> > which our metabolism synthesises all by itself we will obtain health
> > benefits.
>
> Do you avoid foods high in cholesterol?
>
What on earth has that to do with the question? Cholesterol is not an
amino acid, and the reason why cholesterol can cause health problems
is that humans have a stone-age metabolism in a 21st century
environment.
> Your logic is at rock bottom about now.
I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than
you are.
>
> > > > > My advice to you is shut it.
>
> > > > My advice to you it to get an education.
>
> > > I spent 30 seconds researching this disease,and came up with a
> > > solution you couldn't find in 100 years.
>
> > Perhaps you should have spent rather longer than 30 seconds in that
> > case.
>
> Why? To be thick like you?
No, so that you don't make silly assertions, then back yourself into a
corner by trying to defend them. My intelligence is not contingent on
your education.
>
> > > Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine, we cant synthesise
> > > methionine, plants & microbes do.
>
> > Well bully for you. However we *can* synthesise aspartic acid.
>
> And cholesterol. I know, lets all pig out on macky Dee's.
Why?
>
> > > They synthesize methionine via a pathway that uses both aspartic acid
>
> > ...which our bodies synthesise...
>
> So if you have a fire that can't exist without oxygen, and I say "turn
> off the oxygen cylinders".
>
No, we have bodies which produce animo acids which are essential to
our metabolism. It's not an analogy.
> Your argument is:
>
> "What's the point? Theres already oxygen in the atmosphere?"
>
> Nice logic there.
>
> > > Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
>
> > Why should we want to ingest less of an essential amino acid?
>
> If you have elevated Homocysteine, guaranteed you have elevated
> methionine,
> As Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine,
> And Homocysteine can be recycled into methionine.
>
> Cut down foods high in asparic Aspartic acid, you also cut down the
> methionine, you then cut down the Homocysteine.
>
> 30 seconds, the logic is that simple.
I suggest that you read the abstract of the paper to which you
provided a link. Evidently you didn't understand it.
Mind you, a basic education in human metabolism would be a useful
preliminary step.
RF
spintronic
> On Nov 12, 7:41 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Nov, 13:15, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 5:14 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > > > "This study found that folate supplementation substantially reduced
> > > > > plasma homocysteine and produced a statistically significant but
> > > > > clinically modest improvement in peripheral arterial circulation
> > > > > compared with placebo,"
>
> > > > >http://www.lef.org/newsletter/2009/0911_Folic-Acid-Supplementation-Im...
>
> > > > > homocysteine of course raises inflamation, which is at the heart of
> > > > > all disease and damage to the body.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pay attention to what you are eating BoZo's. Mkay?
>
> > > > > thanks.
>
> > > > > The Alll Seeing I
>
> > > > Another extremely useful study *not* brought to you by the ToE.
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > The ancients knew what foods to eat to stay healthy.
>
> > > No ToE needed... [chuckle]
>
> > Lucy Wills was one of the ancients? 'Cause people at her time for sure
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or evolutionists burning books like hitler.
Dan Listermann
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6a86f36-333b-4b17...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Creationists seem paranoid.
.
Ye Old One
You are an idiot.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
It is done in the hope that one day you will actually discover honesty
and actually admit that you were wrong on all of those.
Until you address them - in full - I will keep giving you a reminder.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
spintronic
> > > > Here is a list of foods highest in aspartic acid
>
> > > >http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000092000000000000000.html
>
> > > > It does not take a genius to avoid these foods, or eat the ones that
> > > > have the least e951 content
>
> > > On the other hand, it takes an idiot to think that plants come with an
> > > E number printed on them,
>
> > Are you a retard?
>
> > Entry number 1) on the website I listed.
>
> > 1) Swamp cabbage, (skunk cabbage), raw Aspartic acid: 6843mg
>
> And do you think that swamp cabbage has "E951" printed on the side?
Why would I think that?
Where you are going wrong, is in the fact that I said "avoid foods
with Aspartic acid".
I gave 2 ways to define these foods.
1) The "E"- numbers.
2) A website which lists the content of Aspartic acid vs various
foods.
What you are *TRYING* to do, is mismatch/confuse/discredit the 2 by
cross reference.
It won't work.
> > There are 998 other listings.
>
> > Ah, you must be one of the retards, when I said;
>
> > "It does not take a genius to avoid these foods".
>
> > > and that if we avoid ingesting an amino acid
> > > which our metabolism synthesises all by itself we will obtain health
> > > benefits.
>
> > Do you avoid foods high in cholesterol?
>
> What on earth has that to do with the question?
You imply that reducing foods in asparic acid has no effect, because
we produce it anyway.
The Cholesterol analogy proves you wrong.
> > Your logic is at rock bottom about now.
>
> I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than
> you are.
Maybe. But if *I* were dying from the disease, adman describes.
I would take my advice, (about asparic acid) above all others.
I encourage everyone else in that condition to do the same.
> > > > > > My advice to you is shut it.
>
> > > > > My advice to you it to get an education.
>
> > > > I spent 30 seconds researching this disease,and came up with a
> > > > solution you couldn't find in 100 years.
>
> > > Perhaps you should have spent rather longer than 30 seconds in that
> > > case.
>
> > Why? To be thick like you?
>
> No, so that you don't make silly assertions,
It's not silly.
> then back yourself into a corner by trying to defend them.
I am not defending anything.
Its as simple as A+B+C = D
Cut out A, you have B + C,
Cut out B, you have C,
Since A+B+C < C, D = healthy patient.
> My intelligence is not contingent on your education.
And?
> > > > Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine, we cant synthesise
> > > > methionine, plants & microbes do.
>
> > > Well bully for you. However we *can* synthesise aspartic acid.
>
> > And cholesterol. I know, lets all pig out on macky Dee's.
>
> Why?
To prove your;
"we already produce A, so A+ [Extra A] is not bad" hypothesis, is
correct.
> > > > They synthesize methionine via a pathway that uses both aspartic acid
>
> > > ...which our bodies synthesise...
>
> > So if you have a fire that can't exist without oxygen, and I say "turn
> > off the oxygen cylinders".
>
> No, we have bodies which produce animo acids which are essential to
> our metabolism. It's not an analogy.
It is, You just dont get it.
Since you **CAN'T** comprehend the A-Acid scenario, try cholesterol,
(It's had more publicity).
Your body is on fire, (Dying from high cholesterol),
I say "cut down, cholesterol".
You say "what's the point, we produce it anyway".
That makes *NO* sence.
Yet you are making the same mistake with asparic acid.
> > Your argument is:
>
> > "What's the point? Theres already oxygen in the atmosphere?"
>
> > Nice logic there.
>
> > > > Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
>
> > > Why should we want to ingest less of an essential amino acid?
>
> > If you have elevated Homocysteine, guaranteed you have elevated
> > methionine,
> > As Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine,
> > And Homocysteine can be recycled into methionine.
>
> > Cut down foods high in asparic Aspartic acid, you also cut down the
> > methionine, you then cut down the Homocysteine.
>
> > 30 seconds, the logic is that simple.
>
> I suggest that you read the abstract of the paper to which you
> provided a link. Evidently you didn't understand it.
I'm not arsed about the link. I did understand it, and I'm right.
> Mind you, a basic education in human metabolism would be a useful
> preliminary step.
Luckily, you don't have Plasma homocysteine
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 13, 1:53 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
snip
> I accept all evidence grounded in real science and that is germane and
> foundational to the subject.
Yet you reject evolution, which is germaine, and "foundational".
>
> Which leaves evolution OUT
No, you just reject what you don't like.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
>> science wanting to play God to Man.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Or evolutionists burning books like hitler.
What "evolutionists" have been burning books? And what books?
DJT
Mike Painter
> I accept all evidence grounded in real science and that is germane and
> foundational to the subject.
>
> Which leaves evolution OUT
How does the study of star formation in astronomy differ from the study of
evolution?
Or do you reject astronomy as science?
Note that this question can be asked between evolution and any other
scientific study but astronomy lacks two components that the person who does
not understand science insists must be present.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Because you wrote "They're all labelled "E951"
>
> Where you are going wrong, is in the fact that I said "avoid foods
> with Aspartic acid".
No, you said "They're all labelled "E951" .
> I gave 2 ways to define these foods.
No, you said "They're all labelled "E951" "
>
> 1) The "E"- numbers.
> 2) A website which lists the content of Aspartic acid vs various
> foods.
>
> What you are *TRYING* to do, is mismatch/confuse/discredit the 2 by
> cross reference.
No, what I'm doing very successfully is pointing out that you posted
garbage
>
> It won't work.
>
I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than
you are.
> > > There are 998 other listings.
>
> > > Ah, you must be one of the retards, when I said;
>
> > > "It does not take a genius to avoid these foods".
>
> > > > and that if we avoid ingesting an amino acid
> > > > which our metabolism synthesises all by itself we will obtain health
> > > > benefits.
>
> > > Do you avoid foods high in cholesterol?
>
> > What on earth has that to do with the question?
>
> You imply that reducing foods in asparic acid has no effect, because
> we produce it anyway.
I've also pointed out that the human metabolism is remarkably
effective in controlling itself.
>
> The Cholesterol analogy proves you wrong.
No, it doesn't. Cholesterol is not an amino acid, and the problems
associated with excess cholesterol have a completely different origin
than your claimed issue with aspartic acid - which, being an essential
amino acid for plant metabolism is present in all plants.
>
> > > Your logic is at rock bottom about now.
>
> > I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than
> > you are.
>
> Maybe. But if *I* were dying from the disease, adman describes.
> I would take my advice, (about asparic acid) above all others.
> I encourage everyone else in that condition to do the same.
If I was dying of disease there are rather a lot of people from whom
I'd take advice rather than "Adman" or yourself. People who have made
a scientific study of disease would be infinitely preferable. We call
them "doctors".
I suggest that I "get" rather more than you do.
>
> Since you **CAN'T** comprehend the A-Acid scenario, try cholesterol,
> (It's had more publicity).
>
> Your body is on fire, (Dying from high cholesterol),
>
> I say "cut down, cholesterol".
>
> You say "what's the point, we produce it anyway".
>
> That makes *NO* sence.
>
> Yet you are making the same mistake with asparic acid.
>
Our bodies synthesise vast numbers of different metabolic chemicals.
Very few cause any problems. Just because cholesterol may cause
problems for reasons we understand does not mean that every other
metabolic chemical causes problems, or that we can avoid ingesting it
in our everyday diet.
>
>
> > > Your argument is:
>
> > > "What's the point? Theres already oxygen in the atmosphere?"
>
> > > Nice logic there.
>
> > > > > Eat foods low in asparic acid, you ingest less methionine.
>
> > > > Why should we want to ingest less of an essential amino acid?
>
> > > If you have elevated Homocysteine, guaranteed you have elevated
> > > methionine,
> > > As Homocysteine is biosynthesized from methionine,
> > > And Homocysteine can be recycled into methionine.
>
> > > Cut down foods high in asparic Aspartic acid, you also cut down the
> > > methionine, you then cut down the Homocysteine.
>
> > > 30 seconds, the logic is that simple.
>
> > I suggest that you read the abstract of the paper to which you
> > provided a link. Evidently you didn't understand it.
>
> I'm not arsed about the link. I did understand it, and I'm right.
I suggest that others are better placed to make such a judgement than
you are.
>
> > Mind you, a basic education in human metabolism would be a useful
> > preliminary step.
>
> Luckily, you don't have Plasma homocysteine
Luckily for me, I have homocystene in my blood plasma. It's an
essential part of my metabolism, and I'd die if it wasn't being
produced. In some medical conditions it can reach higher levels than
is healthy, and if that occured I'd take medical advice, and make
sure I have enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in my diet. I
wouldn't waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an
essential amino acid present in all plants.
But then, I have this idea that people who study a subject are better
suited to make judgements on issues pertaining to the subject than
those who have only gleaned a few snippets of dubious information from
unreliable sources.
Still, if you prefer to believe what you read on the internet than to
take medical advice from physicians, it's your funeral.
RF
All-Seeing-I
Science trumps evolution. The bible triumphs evolution. Ancient texts
trump evolution. Everything trumps evolution because it is not a
legitimate science.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Science trumps evolution. The bible triumphs evolution. Ancient texts
> trump evolution. Everything trumps evolution because it is not a
> legitimate science.
spintronic
And?
Integers divisible by only 2 natural numbers are labelled primes.
Do you think the number 137 comes with a; "this is a prime" label
attatched?
> > Where you are going wrong, is in the fact that I said "avoid foods
> > with Aspartic acid".
>
> No, you said "They're all labelled "E951" .
Oh god, another weirdo.
Yes food's that have legal labels display e951 on foods with asparic
acid.
But WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!
You missed the whole point because you can't see the beech because you
are looking at a grain of sand.
<snip>
I'm done with your gibberish!
Take the advice or don't.
I don't give a flying fuck!
richardal...@googlemail.com
I'm not the one who claimed that one can recognise foods containing
aspartic acid because, and I quote, "They're all labelled "E951" .
Who's the wierdo here?
>
> Yes food's that have legal labels display e951 on foods with asparic
> acid.
>
> But WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!
>
> You missed the whole point because you can't see the beech because you
> are looking at a grain of sand.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm done with your gibberish!
Which is another way of saying that you've lost the argument, and are
running away.
>
> Take the advice or don't.
>
> I don't give a flying fuck!
As I wrote previously, why on earth should I take the advice of
someone who is not only ignorant of the subject but dogmatically
determined to remain ignorant over the advice of the scientists who
have actually *studied* the subject?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well, it's taught as science in universities all over the world. It's
accepted as science by the businesses which make billions by
implementing the findings of evolutionary biology. In fact, it's only
a few religious fanatics who deny that it's science, but as they very
clearly know little of the nature of science in general and
evolutionary biology in particular, why on earth should anyone accept
their views on the subject?
RF
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Evolution is a fact which science explains using the ToE.
> The bible triumphs evolution. Ancient texts
>trump evolution. Everything trumps evolution because it is not a
>legitimate science.
Liar!
spintronic
Another "professor weirdo".
In other words, you are arguing quite silly irrelivent points, like
what cans have written on them.
Instead of your true agenda; trying to disprove my claim that
"reducing aspartic acid- reduces homocysteine".
Blabbering about tin cans doesn't cut it.
> > Yes food's that have legal labels display e951 on foods with asparic
> > acid.
>
> > But WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!
>
> > You missed the whole point because you can't see the beech because you
> > are looking at a grain of sand.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I'm done with your gibberish!
>
> Which is another way of saying that you've lost the argument, and are
> running away.
No, I haven't lost any argument, I just simply refuse to get caught up
in new ones you invent that are irrelevant.
> > Take the advice or don't.
>
> > I don't give a flying fuck!
>
> As I wrote previously, why on earth should I take the advice of
> someone who is not only ignorant of the subject but dogmatically
> determined to remain ignorant over the advice of the scientists who
> have actually *studied* the subject?
And your cure is?????
And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
is????
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, I'm mocking you for making silly assertions and enjoying your
antics in your silly pretence that you haven't.
>
> Instead of your true agenda; trying to disprove my claim that
> "reducing aspartic acid- reduces homocysteine".
>
You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it.
> Blabbering about tin cans doesn't cut it.
>
> > > Yes food's that have legal labels display e951 on foods with asparic
> > > acid.
>
> > > But WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!
>
> > > You missed the whole point because you can't see the beech because you
> > > are looking at a grain of sand.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > I'm done with your gibberish!
>
> > Which is another way of saying that you've lost the argument, and are
> > running away.
>
> No, I haven't lost any argument, I just simply refuse to get caught up
> in new ones you invent that are irrelevant.
I suggest that others are better placed to judge that than you are.
>
> > > Take the advice or don't.
>
> > > I don't give a flying fuck!
>
> > As I wrote previously, why on earth should I take the advice of
> > someone who is not only ignorant of the subject but dogmatically
> > determined to remain ignorant over the advice of the scientists who
> > have actually *studied* the subject?
>
> And your cure is?????
Well, the medical advice for control of the medical condition which
leads to an excess of homocystene is to make sure make sure you have
enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in your diet. I wouldn't
waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an essential
amino acid present in all plants.
>
> And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> is????
It is not supported by evidence.
RF
Ernest Major
<77d2f939-bb6e-4af0...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>> > As I wrote previously, why on earth should I take the advice of
>> > someone who is not only ignorant of the subject but dogmatically
>> > determined to remain ignorant over the advice of the scientists who
>> > have actually *studied* the subject?
>>
>> And your cure is?????
>
>Well, the medical advice for control of the medical condition which
>leads to an excess of homocystene is to make sure make sure you have
>enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in your diet. I wouldn't
>waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an essential
>amino acid present in all plants.
As I understand the jargon aspartic acid is a protein amino-acid (and is
therefore found in all animals, all plants, all fungi, all protozoans,
all bacteria and all archaea), but not an essential amino-acid (as it is
synthesised in the human metabolism).
--
alias Ernest Major
spintronic
> > Another "professor weirdo".
>
> > In other words, you are arguing quite silly irrelivent points, like
> > what cans have written on them.
>
> No, I'm mocking you for making silly assertions and enjoying your
> antics in your silly pretence that you haven't.
Well you're doing a bad job of both.
> > Instead of your true agenda; trying to disprove my claim that
> > "reducing aspartic acid- reduces homocysteine".
>
> You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it.
I did. Now you prove me wrong.
> > No, I haven't lost any argument, I just simply refuse to get caught up
> > in new ones you invent that are irrelevant.
>
> I suggest that others are better placed to judge that than you are.
Again, you'd be wrong.
> > And your cure is?????
>
> Well, the medical advice for control of the medical condition which
> leads to an excess of homocystene is to make sure make sure you have
> enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in your diet. I wouldn't
> waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an essential
> amino acid present in all plants.
Yes, exactly as my first advice.
> > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > is????
>
> It is not supported by evidence.
And your evidence is?
richardal...@googlemail.com
I suggest that others are better placed to judge that than you are.
>
> > > Instead of your true agenda; trying to disprove my claim that
> > > "reducing aspartic acid- reduces homocysteine".
>
> > You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it.
>
> I did. Now you prove me wrong.
Assertion is not evidence.
>
> > > No, I haven't lost any argument, I just simply refuse to get caught up
> > > in new ones you invent that are irrelevant.
>
> > I suggest that others are better placed to judge that than you are.
>
> Again, you'd be wrong.
Others will hold a different opinion.
>
> > > And your cure is?????
>
> > Well, the medical advice for control of the medical condition which
> > leads to an excess of homocystene is to make sure make sure you have
> > enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in your diet. I wouldn't
> > waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an essential
> > amino acid present in all plants.
>
> Yes, exactly as my first advice.
What "first advice"?
Your assertion was that "This study means squat" in reference to the
post which started this thread which referred to the use of dietary
supplements to control plasma homocysteine.
You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
You then claimed that one should, and I quote "Cut all foods out that
contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid". "
As aspartic acid is an essential amino acid present in all plants,
this would be rather difficult.
>
> > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > is????
>
> > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> And your evidence is?
The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
plasma homocysteine.
Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
RF
spintronic
Again you'd be wrong. (& Repetetive)
> > > > Instead of your true agenda; trying to disprove my claim that
> > > > "reducing aspartic acid- reduces homocysteine".
>
> > > You're making the claim. It's up to you to support it.
>
> > I did. Now you prove me wrong.
>
> Assertion is not evidence.
I didn't make an assertion. I defined a clear pathway.
> > > > No, I haven't lost any argument, I just simply refuse to get caught up
> > > > in new ones you invent that are irrelevant.
>
> > > I suggest that others are better placed to judge that than you are.
>
> > Again, you'd be wrong.
>
> Others will hold a different opinion.
Their entitled to.
> > > > And your cure is?????
>
> > > Well, the medical advice for control of the medical condition which
> > > leads to an excess of homocystene is to make sure make sure you have
> > > enough folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 in your diet. I wouldn't
> > > waste my time trying to find a source of food which lacks an essential
> > > amino acid present in all plants.
>
> > Yes, exactly as my first advice.
>
> What "first advice"?
Quote: "They need; vitamins B6 and B12,".
> Your assertion was that "This study means squat"
All studies of 133 people mean squat.
> You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
> dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
How is that a contradiction?
> You then claimed that one should, and I quote "Cut all foods out that
> contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid". "
Yes. Though *reduce* would have been a better term.
> As aspartic acid is an essential amino acid present in all plants,
> this would be rather difficult.
Like I said before.
It may be present in all plants, but it is not present in the same
quantity in all plants.
I gave a website with those quantities, & advised eating the reduced
values.
> > > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > > is????
>
> > > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> > And your evidence is?
>
> The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
I waqnt your reasons & logic.
(ALTHOUGH, I gave plenty of evidence to support my claim)
> that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> plasma homocysteine.
I gave plenty of evidence.
I guess you slept through the oxygen analogy.
> Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
I understand fine. You seem to be having problems.
William Forrest
Well, many scientists would disagree with you.
What do you know that they don't?
> > You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
> > dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
>
> How is that a contradiction?
It rather contradicts your assertion that "the study means squat".
>
> > You then claimed that one should, and I quote "Cut all foods out that
> > contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid". "
>
> Yes. Though *reduce* would have been a better term.
"Reduce" and "cut out" mean different things. You made a rather silly
mistake, and rather than admit you made a silly mistake you prefer to
tie yourself in knots trying to pretend that you didn't.
But please, carry on. I'm sure that others are as amused by your silly
antics as I am
>
> > As aspartic acid is an essential amino acid present in all plants,
> > this would be rather difficult.
>
> Like I said before.
>
> It may be present in all plants, but it is not present in the same
> quantity in all plants.
...which means that your assertion that by eliminating (i.e. "cut
out") aspartic acid from one's diet one can control plasma
homocysteine is
an unfounded assertion.
Didn't you realise that aspartic acid is an essential amino acid in
plants?
>
> I gave a website with those quantities, & advised eating the reduced
> values.
...but presented no evidence that by eliminating (or even avoiding)
aspartic acid from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine
You realise that animal bodies are pretty good at controlling
metabolism?
>
> > > > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > > > is????
>
> > > > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> > > And your evidence is?
>
> > The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
>
> Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence.
Let's put back the part you snipped without marking, shall we?
"The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your
claim
that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
plasma homocysteine. "
So where have you produced evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid
from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
>
> I waqnt your reasons & logic.
I'm not the one making an unfounded assertion.
You are.
Where is the evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's
diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
>
> (ALTHOUGH, I gave plenty of evidence to support my claim)
An unfounded assertion is not evidence.
>
> > that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> > plasma homocysteine.
>
> I gave plenty of evidence.
No, you made an assertion.
An assertion is not evidence.
>
> I guess you slept through the oxygen analogy.
An analogy is not evidence either.
>
> > Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
>
> I understand fine. You seem to be having problems.
I suggest that the evidence shows a rather different story.
RF
spintronic
.
> > > Your assertion was that "This study means squat"
>
> > All studies of 133 people mean squat.
>
> Well, many scientists would disagree with you.
And the Data of 6000000000 other patients may disagree with your 133.
> What do you know that they don't?
You want a list?
Lets start with common sence, IQ, and unbiased opinion.
(I am not a producer of "Folic Acid")
> > > You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
> > > dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
>
> > How is that a contradiction?
>
> It rather contradicts your assertion that "the study means squat".
Go on you tell me how.
Because, my guess is you Have 0 idea of what you just meant to say!
> > > You then claimed that one should, and I quote "Cut all foods out that
> > > contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid". "
>
> > Yes. Though *reduce* would have been a better term.
>
> "Reduce" and "cut out" mean different things. You made a rather silly
> mistake, and rather than admit you made a silly mistake you prefer to
> tie yourself in knots trying to pretend that you didn't.
>
> But please, carry on. I'm sure that others are as amused by your silly
> antics as I am
You are RETARDS.
A Doctor says; "cut out cholesterol".
You say;
"but my body produces it, how can I "cut it out""?
The Doctor says "YOU FUCKING IDIOT"!!
> Didn't you realise that aspartic acid is an essential amino acid in
> plants?
Duhhhhh! Let me think!!!
> > I gave a website with those quantities, & advised eating the reduced
> > values.
>
> ...but presented no evidence that by eliminating (or even avoiding)
> aspartic acid from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine
I gave the evidence & pathway.
Don't blame me, because your a FUCKING RETARD who can't comprehend.
> You realise that animal bodies are pretty good at controlling
> metabolism?
Duhhhh!!!!! Let me think!!!!!!!!
> > > > > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > > > > is????
>
> > > > > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> > > > And your evidence is?
>
> > > The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
>
> > Lack of evidence is not evidence.
>
> Lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence.
The evidence you claim *ISN'T* there, actually *IS*.
Ergo;
Your evidence that my evidence isn't supported by any evidence, is not
supported by the evidence (above) that my evidence; 'that my evidence
is supported by evidence' is clearly evident above. Therefore, your
evidence of my lack of evidence is proven false by the production of
my evidence, that my evidence is supported by my evidence (above).
Therefore this evidence disproves your double claim, that I lack any
evidence, which is supported by the evidence that you don't have.
> Let's put back the part you snipped without marking, shall we?
Do what you want. All evidence is admissable.
> "The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your
> claim that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> plasma homocysteine. "
>
> So where have you produced evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid
> from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
The evidence for the claim that you make that I lack evidence is
evident in the above posts, where I present my evidence. Your evidence
that my evidence is not supported by evidence is sadly missing.
> > I want your reasons & logic.
>
> I'm not the one making an unfounded assertion.
> You are.
The foundations of my assertions are evident in the evidence that I
used as evidence to support my assertion that the evidence I presented
is evidence of my assertion.
> Where is the evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's
> diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
The evidence proving my assertion in your question is evident in the
evidence I presented as evidence of my assertion.
> > (ALTHOUGH, I gave plenty of evidence to support my claim)
>
> An unfounded assertion is not evidence.
Evidence that supports an unfounded claim is evidence the claim is not
unfounded, therefore the claim that the claim is unfounded is proven
false by the evidence the unfounded claim relies on.
> > > that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> > > plasma homocysteine.
>
> > I gave plenty of evidence.
>
> No, you made an assertion.
Based on evidence.
> An assertion is not evidence.
An assertion based on evidence is evidence that the original assertion
was evidently true.
> > I guess you slept through the oxygen analogy.
>
> An analogy is not evidence either.
An anology proving that evidence 'A' is equal to evidence 'B', proves
that evidence 'A' & evidence 'B' are evedently equal.
> > > Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
>
> > I understand fine. You seem to be having problems.
>
> I suggest that the evidence shows a rather different story.
Your suggestion that the evidence showing that my suggestion that you
dont understand my suggestion that your suggestion that the evidence
suggests that my suggestions arent supported by evidence, is suggested
to be false by the evidence of my suggestions!
RAM
I cut your stupid response.
Now to the point.
You lost this debate so badly you may need a transfusion.
Your attempt at obfuscation makes you look even more desperate.
Worse it also makes you look like a like a petulant preteen.
Advise: drop TO and play around on the cartoon network.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 14, 5:40 pm, William Forrest <beatmastab...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 14, 5:17 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 4:39 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > > Your assertion was that "This study means squat"
>
> > > All studies of 133 people mean squat.
>
> > Well, many scientists would disagree with you.
>
> And the Data of 6000000000 other patients may disagree with your 133.
What data? Are you now claiming that you have a study which includes
every human on earth?
>
> > What do you know that they don't?
>
> You want a list?
>
> Lets start with common sence,
I suggest that the evidence shows otherwise.
>IQ,
I suggest that the evidence shows otherwise.
> and unbiased opinion.
> (I am not a producer of "Folic Acid")
>
Actually, you are. Your body produces it naturally.
> > > > You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
> > > > dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
>
> > > How is that a contradiction?
>
> > It rather contradicts your assertion that "the study means squat".
>
> Go on you tell me how.
Because the study referred to the effects of dietary supplements.
>
> Because, my guess is you Have 0 idea of what you just meant to say!
Your guesses haven't proved to accurate so far. Why should anyone
expect this to change?
>
> > > > You then claimed that one should, and I quote "Cut all foods out that
> > > > contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid". "
>
> > > Yes. Though *reduce* would have been a better term.
>
> > "Reduce" and "cut out" mean different things. You made a rather silly
> > mistake, and rather than admit you made a silly mistake you prefer to
> > tie yourself in knots trying to pretend that you didn't.
>
> > But please, carry on. I'm sure that others are as amused by your silly
> > antics as I am
>
> You are RETARDS.
I suggest that resorting to petty insult merely reinforces my point.
> A Doctor says; "cut out cholesterol".
>
My doctor says try to avoid foods which are high in cholesterol.
But then, my doctor seems to know more about human biology than yours.
> You say;
>
> "but my body produces it, how can I "cut it out""?
>
> The Doctor says "YOU FUCKING IDIOT"!!
>
> > Didn't you realise that aspartic acid is an essential amino acid in
> > plants?
>
> Duhhhhh! Let me think!!!
It will be an unfamiliar experience for you, but why not give it a
shot?
>
> > > I gave a website with those quantities, & advised eating the reduced
> > > values.
>
> > ...but presented no evidence that by eliminating (or even avoiding)
> > aspartic acid from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine
>
> I gave the evidence & pathway.
No, you claimed a relationship, but gave no evidence whatsoever that
it is a valid model of how metabolism works.
>
> Don't blame me, because your a FUCKING RETARD who can't comprehend.
I suggest that resorting to silly invective merely provides many of us
with amusement at your pathetic attempts to avoid admitting that you
made a silly mistake.
>
> > You realise that animal bodies are pretty good at controlling
> > metabolism?
>
> Duhhhh!!!!! Let me think!!!!!!!!
I'm not stopping you. That seems to be something you manage all by
yourself.
>
> > > > > > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > > > > > is????
>
> > > > > > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> > > > > And your evidence is?
>
> > > > The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
>
> > > Lack of evidence is not evidence.
>
> > Lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence.
>
> The evidence you claim *ISN'T* there, actually *IS*.
>
So where is the evidence that your assertions about metabolism have
any foundation in evidence?
> Ergo;
>
> Your evidence that my evidence isn't supported by any evidence, is not
> supported by the evidence (above) that my evidence; 'that my evidence
> is supported by evidence' is clearly evident above. Therefore, your
> evidence of my lack of evidence is proven false by the production of
> my evidence, that my evidence is supported by my evidence (above).
> Therefore this evidence disproves your double claim, that I lack any
> evidence, which is supported by the evidence that you don't have.
>
> > Let's put back the part you snipped without marking, shall we?
>
> Do what you want. All evidence is admissable.
.and lack of evidence is lack of evidence, no matter how much you deny
it.
>
> > "The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your
> > claim that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> > plasma homocysteine. "
>
> > So where have you produced evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid
> > from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
>
> The evidence for the claim that you make that I lack evidence is
> evident in the above posts, where I present my evidence. Your evidence
> that my evidence is not supported by evidence is sadly missing.
>
It's plainly there in the posts in this thread.
> > > I want your reasons & logic.
>
> > I'm not the one making an unfounded assertion.
> > You are.
>
> The foundations of my assertions are evident in the evidence that I
> used as evidence to support my assertion that the evidence I presented
> is evidence of my assertion.
>
> > Where is the evidence that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's
> > diet one can control plasma homocysteine?
>
> The evidence proving my assertion in your question is evident in the
> evidence I presented as evidence of my assertion.
>
> > > (ALTHOUGH, I gave plenty of evidence to support my claim)
>
> > An unfounded assertion is not evidence.
>
> Evidence that supports an unfounded claim is evidence the claim is not
> unfounded, therefore the claim that the claim is unfounded is proven
> false by the evidence the unfounded claim relies on.
>
> > > > that by eliminating aspartic acid from one's diet one can control
> > > > plasma homocysteine.
>
> > > I gave plenty of evidence.
>
> > No, you made an assertion.
>
> Based on evidence.
You have provided no evidence.
>
> > An assertion is not evidence.
>
> An assertion based on evidence is evidence that the original assertion
> was evidently true.
>
> > > I guess you slept through the oxygen analogy.
>
> > An analogy is not evidence either.
>
> An anology proving that evidence 'A' is equal to evidence 'B', proves
> that evidence 'A' & evidence 'B' are evedently equal.
You have proved nothing other than your inability to do anything more
than attempt to bluster your way out of a hole of your own digging.
You made a silly assertion which you cannot back up with evidence, but
rather than admit that you made a mistake (which is the mark of an
adult) you persist in this stupid charade which only makes you look
sillier and more dishonest.
But please - carry on. It's very amusing, and it makes other
creationists look silly, ignorant and dishonest by association.
>
> > > > Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
>
> > > I understand fine. You seem to be having problems.
>
> > I suggest that the evidence shows a rather different story.
>
> Your suggestion that the evidence showing that my suggestion that you
> dont understand my suggestion that your suggestion that the evidence
> suggests that my suggestions arent supported by evidence, is suggested
> to be false by the evidence of my suggestions!
Why don't we let others be the judge of that?
RF
spintronic
> On Nov 14, 1:24 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I cut your stupid response.
Ditto.
spintronic
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 7:24 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> > > > > Your assertion was that "This study means squat"
>
> > > > All studies of 133 people mean squat.
>
> > > Well, many scientists would disagree with you.
>
> > And the Data of 6000000000 other patients may disagree with your 133.
>
> What data? Are you now claiming that you have a study which includes
> every human on earth?
Are you?
Do you even know how to calculate the exact number of patients
required to arrive at a correct conclusion?
I do.
And I can tell you, my math does not arrive at 133 for this problem.
> > > What do you know that they don't?
>
> > You want a list?
>
> > Lets start with common sence,
>
> I suggest that the evidence shows otherwise.
More pevality, I am so excited.
> >IQ,
>
> I suggest that the evidence shows otherwise.
I highly doubt that.
> > > > > You then went on to contradict yourself and referred to specific
> > > > > dietary supplements and exercise as treatement.
>
> > > > How is that a contradiction?
>
> > > It rather contradicts your assertion that "the study means squat".
>
> > Go on you tell me how.
>
> Because the study referred to the effects of dietary supplements.
A study of 133 people?
Go home, have a brandy, have a hangover, clear your head, take some IQ
pills, and come back.
> > You are RETARDS.
>
> I suggest that resorting to petty insult merely reinforces my point.
Why?
If a stick is a stick, does it claim its a leaf because someone calls
it a stick?
spintronic
.
> > A Doctor says; "cut out cholesterol".
>
> My doctor says try to avoid foods which are high in cholesterol.
Now isn't that good advice. Avoid foods that aggravate a condition.
Your Doctors IQ must be at least 115 points above yours.
> But then, my doctor seems to know more about human biology than yours.
I don't have a doctor. I seem to be better at diagnosing myself than
they are.
But what has your Doctor gleamed?
What that "Low" is "lower" than "high"?
> > You say;
>
> > "but my body produces it, how can I "cut it out""?
>
> > The Doctor says "YOU FUCKING IDIOT"!!
>
> > > Didn't you realise that aspartic acid is an essential amino acid in
> > > plants?
>
> > Duhhhhh! Let me think!!!
>
> It will be an unfamiliar experience for you, but why not give it a
> shot?
I know, why don't I take 30 "shots", then our IQ's will be on a par.
> > > > I gave a website with those quantities, & advised eating the reduced
> > > > values.
>
> > > ...but presented no evidence that by eliminating (or even avoiding)
> > > aspartic acid from one's diet one can control plasma homocysteine
>
> > I gave the evidence & pathway.
>
> No, you claimed a relationship, but gave no evidence whatsoever that
> it is a valid model of how metabolism works.
I have an idea.
Cut the shit, and say where the pathway is wrong/breaks down/ is
incorrect.
> > Don't blame me, because your a FUCKING RETARD who can't comprehend.
>
> I suggest that resorting to silly invective merely provides many of us
> with amusement at your pathetic attempts to avoid admitting that you
> made a silly mistake.
Oh look, my hypothesis just reversed and changed direction because you
had a hissy.
Oh shit no. This is reality, and you can't find any fault with my
hypothesis.
Ah well, such is life...
> > > You realise that animal bodies are pretty good at controlling
> > > metabolism?
>
> > Duhhhh!!!!! Let me think!!!!!!!!
>
> I'm not stopping you. That seems to be something you manage all by
> yourself.
What "THINKING"?
Yes. You're right, for once.
> > > > > > > > And your logical argument against the chemistry involved in my claim
> > > > > > > > is????
>
> > > > > > > It is not supported by evidence.
>
> > > > > > And your evidence is?
>
> > > > > The fact that you have not produced any evidence to support your claim
>
> > > > Lack of evidence is not evidence.
>
> > > Lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence.
>
> > The evidence you claim *ISN'T* there, actually *IS*.
>
> So where is the evidence that your assertions about metabolism have
> any foundation in evidence?
Night night, you are boring me now.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Creationsit can disagree with each other.
>
>Evolutionsts cant. You guys are like the borg collective.
>
>THAT is what the lurkers ROFL about Chrissy-Poo
tell you what. you go find me a chemist who thinks atoms don't
exist...and then we'll talk about why all scientists accept evolution
and creationism? 2000 years of failure. you guys HAVE to disagree with
each other because you're so embarrassed.
bpuharic
>Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
>science wanting to play God to Man.
now let me see...who was it that shut down the 'academy' in 529?
forbade the publication of ancient texts?
burned books?
oh. those folks were called 'christians'.
thank god for the muslims or we'd have no ancient texts at
all...creationists having had destroyed them all
bpuharic
>I accept all evidence grounded in real science and that is germane and
>foundational to the subject.
>
>Which leaves evolution OUT
not according to us scientists
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The ancients knew what foods to eat to stay healthy.
>
>No ToE needed... [chuckle]
then why did the ancients have a lifespan of 40 years?
bpuharic
>Hey. I have a healthy respect for modern medicine. The problem is
>modern medicine has no respect for anything that came before it.
except, of course, it was the creationists who destroyed all the
non-christian ancient texts
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>It takes longer to get a medical degree in India then it does to
>become a western medical doctor.
have 'em learn astrology. it'll take even longer and be as equally
useful as 'vedic medicine'
bpuharic
>
>Ancient Chineese, Indian, American Indian medicine was curing people
>long before western medicine was around. You should really try and
>learn.
proof?
none
bpuharic
>
>I am actually shocked at some of your replies as of late. Would you
>like some stats on deaths that have resulted from moden medicine? Or
>would a recap of recent laws suits be enough?
life expectancy under creationists: 40 years
todays mediine: 80 years.
res ipsa loquitur
>
>>
>> Did you notice that you didn't answer his question? You don't know why
>> you think any of this stuff, do you?
>>
>> (1) At least up to about 1970. But that's OK, because it's ancient
>> knowledge, so they haven't learned anything lately, right?
>
>I have a healthy respect for modern medicine K.
>
>The problem is modern medicine does not have a healthy respect for
>anything that has come before it. Many modern medicines have their
>origins in ancient remedies of plants, leafs and roots.
and they were pretty much useless
>
>Also. Modern medicine has forgot how to treat the entire person. Which
>includes their spiritual side. Fortunately though, modern medicine is
>beginning to show signs of getting back to it's roots and realize
irrelevant. \
>that.
>
>Many oncologists are beginning to recommend or discourage specific
>foods and herbs as part of their treatment.
actually they're not. if you've had any medical training, you'd know
herbs can interfere with chemo...
you're completely illiterate
They also instruct the
>patient to focus on anything that brings a positive mind set. God is
>positive de jure in people's lives; Those that believe in him anyway.
>
>The rest of you are out in the cold it seems.
and how did belief in god work out for khalid shekh mohammed? were the
3000 who died in the WTC well served by his belief in god?
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Much ancient knowledge has been lost because of the arrogance of
>> science wanting to play God to Man.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Or evolutionists burning books like hitler.
actually it was creationists who destroyed ancient texts
guscubed
> On 12 Nov, 17:29, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:> In message
> > <46101131-9291-4187-b700-45a7d5da9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> writes>> Cut all foods out that contain, or can produce "Aspartic acid".
>
> .
> .
>
> > >One source is wild game, which our ancestors lived on (along with
> > >fruits and veggies) for millions of years. Do you have any cites
> > >demonstrating that ingesting this is unhealthy?
>
> > out all foods" (take up breathatarianism)
>
> You TWIT.
>
Oh, this should be good.
> Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino-acid.
>
Hahahahahaha! Yet again you don't fail to disappoint. Try finding a
protein that does not contain Aspartic acid..
Do yourself a favour and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
> My advice to you is shut it.
My advice to you is: stop shooting from the hip cowboy - it's easier
to avoid shooting yourself in the foot that way.