Does "Dose Make the Poison?" No.
PeterB - Original
beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. By contrast,
pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. EPA levels are designed only
to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. The
industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. It's a convenient
axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
[Ref. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org.]
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:93857e4b-2ca3-480d...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Stupid is as stupid does, eh Peter?
Take this phrase out of the argument, "and other substances that are not
naturally occurring"
Now, let's examine that within the context it was written. Take for
instance, baked potatoes, scrambled eggs, pies, cakes, noodles/pasta's
Catsup, Beer, Whiskey, Pepsi, and inject all these things into the
argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all regardless
of dose, etc.
Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen and
VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man made. Not "natural",
but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah. Is
this a joke or what? Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot makes
blanket statements much in the same manner as yourself..
Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little arsenic
is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you felt
so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't ashamed of
looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:93857e4b-2ca3-480d...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. By contrast,
> > pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
> > occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
> > metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
> > detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. EPA levels are designed only
> > to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
> > In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. The
> > industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
> > based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. It's a convenient
> > axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
> > is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
> > amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
>
> Stupid is as stupid does, eh Peter?
>
> Take this phrase out of the argument, "and other substances that are not
> naturally occurring"
>
> Now, let's examine that within the context it was written. Take for
> instance, baked potatoes, scrambled eggs, pies, cakes,
> noodles/pasta's
Straw man. Processed foods are still made up of naturally-occurring
carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and sugars. It is the *adulteration*
of individual nutrients (trans fats, for instance) that represent the
risk.
> , and inject all these things into the
> argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all regardless
> of dose, etc.
There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided, of
course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
hazards aren't there.
> Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
> and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
> made.
What context is that, moron?
>Not "natural",
> but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs to
that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
> Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah. Is
> this a joke or what? Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
> shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot makes
> blanket statements much in the same manner as yourself..
So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
require you to quote the entire book.
> Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
> goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
> arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
> Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you felt
> so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't ashamed of
> looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
Compared to you a rock floating through space has more connection to
reality. Read a book.
Peter B
===========================================
Poor Peter, does not understand, you are bringing to the table unrelated
items, just try getting trans fats etc out of or into beet, whiskey,
Pepsi, etc. dumb, really dumb Peter.
> , and inject all these things into the
> argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all regardless
> of dose, etc.
There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided, of
course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
hazards aren't there.
=================================================
Sorry bozo, it was written, " regardless of dose, clinical detection, or
EPA toxicity thresholds" Changing your mind now is too, way too late.
Poor reasoning on your part, or acceptance of poor reasoning makes you
look very stupid, thoughtless. All the arguments you now bring up could
be applied to vaccines since they help recreate the natural in a
controlled dosage, including your statement that hazards are to be
expected in some cases. You make a very good case for vaccines and their
usage. Congratulations, dummy.
> Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
> and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
> made.
What context is that, moron?
================================================
The argument you signed your name to, stupid. People cannot eat vitamins
by name without them being assembled and manufactured by man. Otherwise
it would have mentioned foods, fruits, and dirt with those items in it.
>Not "natural",
> but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs to
that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
================================================
You are too stupid for yourself. The only drawback is taking them
improperly. As in other good things a dummy could overdoes. Vitamins
vanish from fruit very quickly and most of the "fresh" stuff you eat,
isn't unless you pick it yourself. There is another problem for people
like you. Oranges do not say full of vitamin C on the skin, nor does any
other fruit of vegetable so stupid people haven't a clue what to eat.
Science helps them. Oh...lol, and then there are the specially packaged
vitamins for old people such as yourself. ;)
> Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah. Is
> this a joke or what? Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
> shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot makes
> blanket statements much in the same manner as yourself..
So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
require you to quote the entire book.
> Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
> goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
> arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
===============================================
Damn you are stupid. Arsenic is arsenic, cannot get any simpler than
that. Do you see here what an agenda driven life is all about? You
*HAVE* to enter into stupid statements to defend the indefensible. As to
mercury I have a very good idea that it is also necessary in minute
amounts but since I haven't read up on it in years I will not go out on
a limb like I know I can with Arsenic. In any event there was no
strawman here, but I did set yours on fire, toast some marshmellows
while you can for free.
> Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you
> felt
> so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't ashamed of
> looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
Compared to you a rock floating through space has more connection to
reality. Read a book.
==============================================
That is so lame, especially since you were blown out of the water.
Nothing, absolutely nothing you posted here had merit. (except your
reply in defense of vaccines)
Peter B
"Peter B" <orig...@frag.com> wrote in message
news:4b116f50$1...@news.x-privat.org...
Just double checked re mercury. While most of it is non-harmful, none of
it is good for the body. Three are a few forms of mercury that are
poison. I'll let you figure that out. ;)
Tristan
> Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
Oxygen is extremely reactive and in high concentrations has harmful
effects on humans and most organisms. A similar thing could be said for
for glucose levels. The "natural vs artificial" argument is worthless.
You have to judge each substance on an individual basis.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous....
>
> Oxygen is extremely reactive and in high concentrations has
> harmful effects on humans and most organisms.
So does water, that doesn't make it *inherently* toxic. Mercury is
inherently toxic because we have no beneficial metabolic response to
it.
> A similar thing could be said for
> for glucose levels.
Or any of hundreds of biosynthetic substances manufactured inside your
body that are essential for good health. You still can't say any of
them are *inherently* poisonous in the way that mercury is.
> The "natural vs artificial" argument is worthless.
I didn't make that argument. Mercury is a naturally-occurring
substance, but we have no beneficial metabolic response to it, so it's
a poison at any dose. You can't say that about oxygen.
> You have to judge each substance on an individual basis.
Only if you refuse to accept classification as an accepted scientific
method for evaluating a set of data.
PeterB - Original
>
> Just double checked re mercury. While most of it is non-harmful...
Care to back that up with a citation?
> none of it is good for the body. Three are a few forms of mercury
> that are poison. I'll let you figure that out. ;)
The evidence shows that all mercury compounds are toxic, although some
are more immediately hazardous and some do not cross the blood brain
barrier. The following papers discuss the adverse health effects of
inorganic mercury. Perhaps you will some (much needed) time to
educate yourself.
1) Langford NJ, Ferner RE (1999). "Toxicity of mercury" (PDF). Journal
of Human Hypertension 13 (10): 651–6. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1000896.
Retrieved 2007-07-31
2) "Mercuric Cyanide." 1987. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/m256/m256_refs/n17en111/164.htm
(accessed April 2, 2009)
PeterB - Original
Yet another straw man. I cited trans fats as one example of a
chemical found in adulterated foods. The discussion pertains to a
classification of **individual** substances on the basis of their
necessity in human health. Your logical fallacies are irrelevant to
that discussion.
> > , and inject all these things into the
> > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all
> > regardless of dose, etc.
>
> There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided,
> of course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
> determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
> because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
> hazards aren't there.
> =================================================
> Sorry bozo, it was written, " regardless of dose, clinical detection,
> or EPA toxicity thresholds" Changing your mind now is too, way
> too late.
Learn to read for comprehension. Regardless of dose, any substance
which cannot be beneficially metabolized is inherently poisonous.
That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of hazard or that some
poisons are not more dangerous than others. I know that goes beyond
your comic book education, but that's not my problem.
> Poor reasoning on your part, or acceptance of poor reasoning
> makes you look very stupid, thoughtless. All the arguments you
> now bring up could be applied to vaccines since they help recreate
> the natural in a controlled dosage...
If that was even barely coherent, I might bother to respond.
> , including your statement that hazards are to be
> expected in some cases. You make a very good case for
> vaccines and their usage. Congratulations, dummy.
No, vaccines are unpredictable and dangerous, period.
> > Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
> > and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
> > made.
>
> What context is that, moron?
> ================================================
> The argument you signed your name to, stupid. People cannot eat
> vitamins by name without them being assembled and
> manufactured by man.
Nobody knows what you are talking about, probably including you.
> Otherwise
> it would have mentioned foods, fruits, and dirt with those items in it.
You did that in order to confuse the issue, as the point made pertains
to individual substances. To discuss various foods in this context
requires a breakdown of their individual ingredients.
> >Not "natural",
> > but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
>
> Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs
> to that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
> vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
> ================================================
> You are too stupid for yourself.
Projection.
> The only drawback is taking them
> improperly.
There is no way to properly take a vitamin that won't beneficially
metabolize. In that form, it's a drug.
> As in other good things a dummy could overdoes.
You must have "overdoesed" on something choice.
> Vitamins
> vanish from fruit very quickly and most of the "fresh" stuff you eat,
> isn't unless you pick it yourself. There is another problem for
> people like you. Oranges do not say full of vitamin C on the skin,
> nor does any
> other fruit of vegetable so stupid people haven't a clue what to eat.
> Science helps them. Oh...lol, and then there are the specially
> packaged vitamins for old people such as yourself. ;)
Who can argue with logic like that? Well, you could. I'm sure you
will one day while wearing a jacket with white straps.
> > Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah.
> > Is this a joke or what?
No, that's you. You're also the punch line.
> Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
> > shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot
> > makes blanket statements much in the same manner as
> > yourself..
>
> So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
> require you to quote the entire book.
>
> > Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
> > goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
> > arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
>
> Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
> poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
> metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
> difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
> essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
> exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
> ===============================================
> Damn you are stupid. Arsenic is arsenic, cannot get any simpler
> than that. Do you see here what an agenda driven life is all about?
What better example could you be? Congrats.
> You *HAVE* to enter into stupid statements to defend the
> indefensible.
That's a gem. In a cage of chimps.
> As to
> mercury I have a very good idea that it is also necessary in minute
> amounts but since I haven't read up on it in years I will not go out
> on a limb like I know I can with Arsenic. In any event there was no
> strawman here, but I did set yours on fire, toast some
> marshmellows while you can for free.
You've been out on a limb the whole time, and now you're smoking the
marshmallows.
> > Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you
> > felt so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't
> > ashamed of looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
>
> Compared to you a rock floating through space has more
> connection to reality. Read a book.
> ==============================================
> That is so lame, especially since you were blown out of the water.
>
> Nothing, absolutely nothing you posted here had merit. (except
> your reply in defense of vaccines)
You call that "working for your supper?" At least you'll get some
laughs.
Peter B
On Nov 28, 2:53 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> Just double checked re mercury. While most of it is non-harmful...
Care to back that up with a citation?
> none of it is good for the body. Three are a few forms of mercury
> that are poison. I'll let you figure that out. ;)
The evidence shows that all mercury compounds are toxic, although some
are more immediately hazardous and some do not cross the blood brain
barrier. The following papers discuss the adverse health effects of
inorganic mercury. Perhaps you will some (much needed) time to
educate yourself.
1) Langford NJ, Ferner RE (1999). "Toxicity of mercury" (PDF). Journal
of Human Hypertension 13 (10): 651-6. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1000896.
Retrieved 2007-07-31
2) "Mercuric Cyanide." 1987.://
(accessed April 2, 2009)
====================================================
Cyanide is well known for its danger. discovered centuries ago. nothing
new there.
You show your ignorance by claiming all mercury is toxic. Show proof.
You said you always provide scientific proof. None of that is here.
As to my using cites, we've already gone over that, you don't want any
as have previously stated, you discount them out of hand.
Mark Probert
You have to understand, Petey has idiotsyncratic definitions of words
that others use every day.
Peter B
You said, "aldulteration of individual nutrients" Trans fats are not in
most foods, especially nowadays. The article said minute changes kill.
Where is your defense of that? You wrote that they kill, you tried to
explaing it away by it is a necessary risk contrary to the intent of the
article. Peter, you are daning, I have you on a string and you are
dancing. Dance little man, dance.
>> > , and inject all these things into the
>> > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all
>> > regardless of dose, etc.
>>
>> There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided,
>> of course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
>> determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
>> because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
>> hazards aren't there.
>> =================================================
>> Sorry bozo, it was written, " regardless of dose, clinical detection,
>> or EPA toxicity thresholds" Changing your mind now is too, way
>> too late.
>
> Learn to read for comprehension. Regardless of dose, any substance
> which cannot be beneficially metabolized is inherently poisonous.
> That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of hazard or that some
> poisons are not more dangerous than others. I know that goes beyond
> your comic book education, but that's not my problem.
>
Wrong dance Peter, it said, "regardless of dose, clinical detection, or
EPA toxicity thresholds". Nothing more.
You aren't dancing very well Peter, stick to the line. You published it,
no twisting and shouting. This is a live dance loser.
>> Poor reasoning on your part, or acceptance of poor reasoning
>> makes you look very stupid, thoughtless. All the arguments you
>> now bring up could be applied to vaccines since they help recreate
>> the natural in a controlled dosage...
>
> If that was even barely coherent, I might bother to respond.
>
Can't make it much simpler. You posted it, whether you wrote it or not,
it makes you look stupid, thoughtless. The arguments you brought up to
support it could be equally applied to vaccines. get it loser>
>> , including your statement that hazards are to be
>> expected in some cases. You make a very good case for
>> vaccines and their usage. Congratulations, dummy.
>
> No, vaccines are unpredictable and dangerous, period.
>
You have no cites, your life denies that "truth". Janets life denies
that "truth".
I showed you comparative statements that brought your ignorance down to
a level of reality.
>> > Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
>> > and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
>> > made.
>>
>> What context is that, moron?
>> ================================================
>> The argument you signed your name to, stupid. People cannot eat
>> vitamins by name without them being assembled and
>> manufactured by man.
>
> Nobody knows what you are talking about, probably including you.
>
Wow, a haughty idiot. go figger.
>> Otherwise
>> it would have mentioned foods, fruits, and dirt with those items in
>> it.
>
> You did that in order to confuse the issue, as the point made pertains
> to individual substances. To discuss various foods in this context
> requires a breakdown of their individual ingredients.
>
No, which is why I quoted the stupid post numerous times, then you
started dancing.
>> >Not "natural",
>> > but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
>>
>> Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs
>> to that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
>> vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
>> ================================================
>> You are too stupid for yourself.
>
> Projection.
>
Very week. Meaning you lost.
>> The only drawback is taking them
>> improperly.
>
> There is no way to properly take a vitamin that won't beneficially
> metabolize. In that form, it's a drug.
>
Changing your dance midstream? Again?
>> As in other good things a dummy could overdoes.
>
> You must have "overdoesed" on something choice.
>
Ignorance on your part, no argument of any substance, improper spelling,
grammar. Typical
>> Vitamins
>> vanish from fruit very quickly and most of the "fresh" stuff you eat,
>> isn't unless you pick it yourself. There is another problem for
>> people like you. Oranges do not say full of vitamin C on the skin,
>> nor does any
>> other fruit of vegetable so stupid people haven't a clue what to eat.
>> Science helps them. Oh...lol, and then there are the specially
>> packaged vitamins for old people such as yourself. ;)
>
> Who can argue with logic like that? Well, you could. I'm sure you
> will one day while wearing a jacket with white straps.
>
Why not just say/admit you lost from the outset. You can twist all you
want, but your post was wrong from its inception, even you Peter cannot
make a purse out of a sows ear.
>> > Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah.
>
>> > Is this a joke or what?
>
> No, that's you. You're also the punch line.
LOL, you are getting real desparate.
>
>> Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
>> > shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot
>> > makes blanket statements much in the same manner as
>> > yourself..
>>
>> So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
>> require you to quote the entire book.
>>
>> > Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is
>> > the
>> > goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
>> > arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
>>
>> Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
>> poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
>> metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
>> difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
>> essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
>> exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
>> ===============================================
>> Damn you are stupid. Arsenic is arsenic, cannot get any simpler
>> than that. Do you see here what an agenda driven life is all about?
>
> What better example could you be? Congrats.
>
Loser sliding downhill fast, no way up. has to say something, anything
still looks the worse for it.
>> You *HAVE* to enter into stupid statements to defend the
>> indefensible.
>
> That's a gem. In a cage of chimps.
>
I suppose you would know. How sad for you.
>> As to
>> mercury I have a very good idea that it is also necessary in minute
>> amounts but since I haven't read up on it in years I will not go out
>> on a limb like I know I can with Arsenic. In any event there was no
>> strawman here, but I did set yours on fire, toast some
>> marshmellows while you can for free.
>
> You've been out on a limb the whole time, and now you're smoking the
> marshmallows.
>
>> > Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you
>> > felt so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't
>> > ashamed of looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
>>
>> Compared to you a rock floating through space has more
>> connection to reality. Read a book.
>> ==============================================
>> That is so lame, especially since you were blown out of the water.
>>
>> Nothing, absolutely nothing you posted here had merit. (except
>> your reply in defense of vaccines)
>
> You call that "working for your supper?" At least you'll get some
> laughs.
That is your last resort, poor Peter. You slipped on the dance floor and
busted your arse.
Sit the next one out, K?
Peter B
On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, Tristan <twer...@aol.com> wrote:
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous....
>
> Oxygen is extremely reactive and in high concentrations has
> harmful effects on humans and most organisms.
So does water, that doesn't make it *inherently* toxic. Mercury is
inherently toxic because we have no beneficial metabolic response to
it.
=============================================
It is inherently toxic, idiot. Read up on it. (oxygen & water)
I'm going to watch you dance, again.
Bob Officer
Dumbass Petie has never read about water intoxication.
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/hydrationandfluid/a/Hyponatremia.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/10/pathologist-tes.html
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Seem he has lost this point completely.
--
Bob Officer
Posting the truth
http://www.skeptics.com.au
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3066aea3-a237-4d4c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 2:53 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just double checked re mercury. While most of it is non-harmful...
>
> Care to back that up with a citation?
>
> > none of it is good for the body. Three are a few forms of mercury
> > that are poison. I'll let you figure that out. ;)
>
> The evidence shows that all mercury compounds are toxic, although some
> are more immediately hazardous and some do not cross the blood brain
> barrier. The following papers discuss the adverse health effects of
> inorganic mercury. Perhaps you will some (much needed) time to
> educate yourself.
>
> 1) Langford NJ, Ferner RE (1999). "Toxicity of mercury" (PDF). Journal
> of Human Hypertension 13 (10): 651-6. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1000896.
> Retrieved 2007-07-31
>
> 2) "Mercuric Cyanide." 1987.://
> (accessed April 2, 2009)
> =================================================
> nothing new there.
>
> You show your ignorance by claiming all mercury is toxic.
If you can name a form of mercury documented to be completely non
toxic, let's hear it. And do cite your source.
> Show proof. You said you always provide scientific proof. None of
> that is here.
When you claimed above that most mercury compounds are not harmful, I
challenged you to do the same, but you conveniently ignored my
challenge. If you don't understand the evidence I cited showing
various mercury compounds are indeed treated as hazardous, that's not
my problem.
> As to my using cites...
"cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
> , we've already gone over that, you don't want
> any as have previously stated, you discount them out of hand.
A convenient lie by which you hope to avoid being held to task for
your bogus claims. The reason you don't cite published science is
because there isn't any supporting whatever it is you think you are
saying.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:cb19ebd9-94f5-4296...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
No, dumbass, you brought up food generally, which is why I raised the
issue of toxic substances within many foods, to address the toxicity
issue that is the topic of this thread.
> You said, "aldulteration of individual nutrients" Trans fats are not in
> most foods, especially nowadays.
I never said they were in most foods.
> The article said minute changes kill.
Minute changes to what? you babbling moron.
> Where is your defense of that? You wrote that they kill, you tried to
> explaing it away by it is a necessary risk contrary to the intent of
> the article.
I suggest that you seek immediate medical attention. Tell them you
can't focus because of all the smoke.
> Peter, you are daning, I have you on a string and you are
> dancing. Dance little man, dance.
Gee, I guess you got me. (chuckle)
> >> > , and inject all these things into the
> >> > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all
> >> > regardless of dose, etc.
>
> >> There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided,
> >> of course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
> >> determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
> >> because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
> >> hazards aren't there.
> >> =================================================
> >> Sorry bozo, it was written, " regardless of dose, clinical detection,
> >> or EPA toxicity thresholds" Changing your mind now is too, way
> >> too late.
>
> > Learn to read for comprehension. Regardless of dose, any substance
> > which cannot be beneficially metabolized is inherently poisonous.
> > That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of hazard or that some
> > poisons are not more dangerous than others. I know that goes beyond
> > your comic book education, but that's not my problem.
>
> Wrong dance Peter, it said, "regardless of dose, clinical detection,
> or EPA toxicity thresholds". Nothing more.
Don't feel bad, we know how hard it is to read all the words on the
page. Maybe some day...
> You aren't dancing very well Peter, stick to the line. You published
> it no twisting and shouting. This is a live dance loser.
I leave all the twisting and bad logic to you, you're so good at it.
> >> Poor reasoning on your part, or acceptance of poor reasoning
> >> makes you look very stupid, thoughtless. All the arguments you
> >> now bring up could be applied to vaccines since they help recreate
> >> the natural in a controlled dosage...
>
> > If that was even barely coherent, I might bother to respond.
>
> Can't make it much simpler.
Try writing in complete sentences.
> You posted it, whether you wrote it or not,
> it makes you look stupid, thoughtless. The arguments you brought up to
> support it could be equally applied to vaccines. get it loser>
No, dumbass, because there is nothing to get.
> >> , including your statement that hazards are to be
> >> expected in some cases. You make a very good case for
> >> vaccines and their usage. Congratulations, dummy.
>
> > No, vaccines are unpredictable and dangerous, period.
>
> You have no cites, your life denies that "truth". Janets life denies
> that "truth".
> I showed you comparative statements that brought your ignorance down to
> a level of reality.
Powerful stuff you're smokin' there, kiddo.
> >> > Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
> >> > and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
> >> > made.
>
> >> What context is that, moron?
> >> ================================================
> >> The argument you signed your name to, stupid. People cannot eat
> >> vitamins by name without them being assembled and
> >> manufactured by man.
>
> > Nobody knows what you are talking about, probably including you.
>
> Wow, a haughty idiot. go figger.
>
> >> Otherwise
> >> it would have mentioned foods, fruits, and dirt with those items in
> >> it.
>
> > You did that in order to confuse the issue, as the point made pertains
> > to individual substances. To discuss various foods in this context
> > requires a breakdown of their individual ingredients.
>
> No, which is why I quoted the stupid post numerous times, then
> you started dancing.
You post 1000% better than you think or write. I know, that isn't
news.
> >> >Not "natural",
> >> > but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
>
> >> Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs
> >> to that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
> >> vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
> >> ================================================
> >> You are too stupid for yourself.
>
> > Projection.
>
> Very week. Meaning you lost.
Very "week?"
> >> The only drawback is taking them
> >> improperly.
>
> > There is no way to properly take a vitamin that won't beneficially
> > metabolize. In that form, it's a drug.
>
> Changing your dance midstream? Again?
No, just pointing out the facts.
> >> As in other good things a dummy could overdoes.
>
> > You must have "overdoesed" on something choice.
>
> Ignorance on your part, no argument of any substance, improper
> spelling, grammar. Typical
Looked in the mirror lately?
> >> Vitamins
> >> vanish from fruit very quickly and most of the "fresh" stuff you eat,
> >> isn't unless you pick it yourself. There is another problem for
> >> people like you. Oranges do not say full of vitamin C on the skin,
> >> nor does any
> >> other fruit of vegetable so stupid people haven't a clue what to eat.
> >> Science helps them. Oh...lol, and then there are the specially
> >> packaged vitamins for old people such as yourself. ;)
>
> > Who can argue with logic like that? Well, you could. I'm sure you
> > will one day while wearing a jacket with white straps.
>
> Why not just say/admit you lost from the outset. You can twist all you
> want, but your post was wrong from its inception, even you Peter cannot
> make a purse out of a sows ear.
I would never try to turn you into a purse.
> >> > Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah.
>
> >> > Is this a joke or what?
>
> > No, that's you. You're also the punch line.
>
> LOL, you are getting real desparate.
No, you're just that stupidly funny.
>
>
> >> Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
> >> > shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot
> >> > makes blanket statements much in the same manner as
> >> > yourself..
>
> >> So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
> >> require you to quote the entire book.
>
> >> > Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is
> >> > the
> >> > goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
> >> > arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
>
> >> Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
> >> poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
> >> metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
> >> difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
> >> essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
> >> exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
> >> ===============================================
> >> Damn you are stupid. Arsenic is arsenic, cannot get any simpler
> >> than that. Do you see here what an agenda driven life is all about?
>
> > What better example could you be? Congrats.
>
> Loser sliding downhill fast, no way up. has to say something,
> anything still looks the worse for it.
So stop sliding downhill.
Peter B
> On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>> As to my using cites...
>
> "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>
I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.
From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.
All these little sidetrips solely designed to make you look good in your
own mind. It is all foolishness, stupidity, and shows off your ADD.
Countless times I have ignored your petty little errors and I will
continue to do so. Especially since I understand that your capability to
learn anything ceased over 50 years ago.
Main Entry: cite
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit�ed; cit�ing
cite (st)
tr.v. cit�ed, cit�ing, cites
tr.v., cit�ed, cit�ing, cites.
To quote as an authority or example.
To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited
several instances of insubordinate behavior.
To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
To honor formally.
To summon before a court of law.
PeterB - Original
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:24:47 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> >beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> >vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. By contrast,
> >pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
> >occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
> >metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
> >detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. EPA levels are designed only
> >to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
> >In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. The
> >industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
> >based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. It's a convenient
> >axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
> >is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
> >amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
>
> Dumbass Petie has never read about water intoxication.
The point is that water is not inherently poisonous. No one expects
you to get that part.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ce3ac067-29d8-4e72...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> >> As to my using cites...
>
> > "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>
> I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
> then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.
>
> From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.
Moron, you used it as a noun. And you still haven't named a form of
mercury proven to be completely non toxic. You can't do it, can you?
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:51b3c12d-1a1f-4db9...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, Tristan <twer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous....
>
> > Oxygen is extremely reactive and in high concentrations has
> > harmful effects on humans and most organisms.
>
> So does water, that doesn't make it *inherently* toxic. Mercury is
> inherently toxic because we have no beneficial metabolic response
> to it.
> =============================================
> It is inherently toxic, idiot. Read up on it. (oxygen & water)
Really? So how is water good for you if it's toxic?
> I'm going to watch you dance, again.
Tell the chimp who trained you that you need more treats.
Mark Probert
> On Nov 29, 2:27 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ce3ac067-29d8-4e72...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > >> As to my using cites...
>
> > > "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>
> > I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
> > then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.
>
> > From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.
>
> Moron, you used it as a noun.
Which is entirely correct. See definition #2:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite
cite
2 /saɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahyt] Show IPA
–noun
citation (defs. 7, 8).
Origin:
by shortening
Cue Petey to play his stOOpid games.
PeterB - Original
> On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2:27 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ce3ac067-29d8-4e72...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> As to my using cites...
>
> > > > "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>
> > > I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
> > > then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.
>
> > > From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.
>
> > Moron, you used it as a noun.
>
> Which is entirely correct. See definition #2:
markey, you imbecile, read your own source. See the word "citation"
adjacent to the word "noun?" The idiot shadow poster used the verb
form ("cite") as a noun. Don't feel bad, no pharmnuts have shown any
ability over the years to read or comprehend a dictionary. Since you
don't read books, I'm surprised you even consulted one. Didn't help,
though.
Mark Probert
> On Nov 29, 6:08 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 2:27 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ce3ac067-29d8-4e72...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> As to my using cites...
>
> > > > > "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>
> > > > I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
> > > > then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.
>
> > > > From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.
>
> > > Moron, you used it as a noun.
>
> > Which is entirely correct. See definition #2:
>
>
> > cite
> > 2 /saɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahyt] Show IPA
> > –noun
> > citation (defs. 7, 8).
> > Origin:
> > by shortening
>
> > Cue Petey to play his stOOpid games.
> markey, you imbecile, read your own source. See the word "citation"
> adjacent to the word "noun?" The idiot shadow poster used the verb
> form ("cite") as a noun. Don't feel bad, no pharmnuts have shown any
> ability over the years to read or comprehend a dictionary. Since you
> don't read books, I'm surprised you even consulted one. Didn't help,
> though.
>
Yes, like I said, Petey plays one of his stoopid games. The citation I
posted list "cite" as a noun and as a synonym for citation.
Petey is so predictable. He just cannot stand being proven wrong.
Note to Petey: Give up on this one, you lost, loser.
PeterB - Original
You obviously can't read. The noun form is shown as "citation," which
you then must click in order to see its definition. Note that on the
same page the word "cite" is shown with ALL its relevant definitions
(not so for the noun form) and even suggested uses, yet not one of
those examples uses "cite" as a noun. Why not? On top of all that,
both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster agree, listing "cite" ONLY as a
verb.
> Petey is so predictable. He just cannot stand being proven wrong.
Actually, I love being proven wrong, as it happens so rarely.
> Note to Petey: Give up on this one, you lost, loser.
Sorry, markey, you once again demonstrate that reading is not one of
your talents. You might want to check out a class in dictionary
reading.
Tristan
It's true that the proper form of the noun is "citation", but people use
abbreviated forms in postings and emails all the time. It's accepted
practice on the Web. What is not acceptable, and just confuses people,
is to redefine words to fit your preconceived notions, which is what you
seem to be doing.
Mark Probert
Sure I can. In the next sentence you acknowledge that "cite" has a
"noun form", where you had denied this earlier.
This is but another one of you assinine semantics games, and one of
the many reasons that intelligent, science based discussion is
meaningless with you.
The noun form is shown as "citation," which
> you then must click in order to see its definition. Note that on the
> same page the word "cite" is shown with ALL its relevant definitions
> (not so for the noun form) and even suggested uses, yet not one of
> those examples uses "cite" as a noun. Why not? On top of all that,
> both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster agree, listing "cite" ONLY as a
> verb.
So? Cite is used as a noun, this reference acknowledges it as a noun,
and you have acknowledged reading that.
You are desperate not to be shown to be wrong. Too bad, Blowhard, you
are wrong. Live with it.
>
> > Petey is so predictable. He just cannot stand being proven wrong.
>
> Actually, I love being proven wrong, as it happens so rarely.
Blowhard
> > Note to Petey: Give up on this one, you lost, loser.
>
> Sorry, markey, you once again demonstrate that reading is not one of
> your talents. You might want to check out a class in dictionary
> reading.
See above, desperate one. You lost. Live with it.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Probert
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cite
Noun 1. cite - a short note recognizing a source of information or of
a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several
important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the
front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical
cases"
Dumbass.
Mark Probert
>
> - Show quoted text -
He does not seem to be doing that. He does it with regularity to
change meaning and come up with his own idiotsyncratic meanings. For
PontificatingBlowhard, this is SOP.
PeterB - Original
Your complaint would mean that **any** word has been redefined just
because you disagree with the context in which it is used. Your
comment is therefore a logical fallacy. If I'm wrong, please list the
word I misused and cite your source.
PeterB - Original
Bull. I said from the start that "citation" is the proper noun form
of the word, citing both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, neither of
which shows "cite" to be a noun.
> This is but another one of you assinine semantics games, and one
> of the many reasons that intelligent, science based discussion is
> meaningless with you.
Still can't cite any books you've read on any of the topics you
comment on? Oh, that's right. You don't believe in books and,
wouldn't you know, there aren't any that agree with you anyway.
> The noun form is shown as "citation," which
>
> > you then must click in order to see its definition. Note that on the
> > same page the word "cite" is shown with ALL its relevant definitions
> > (not so for the noun form) and even suggested uses, yet not one of
> > those examples uses "cite" as a noun. Why not? On top of all that,
> > both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster agree, listing "cite" ONLY as a
> > verb.
>
> So? Cite is used as a noun, this reference acknowledges it as a noun,
> and you have acknowledged reading that.
If that were true, why didn't your source provide even one sample
sentence using "cite" as a noun as it did numerous times for "cite" as
a verb? Because it's not grammatically proper. Sure, one can find
low-level sources noting infrequent usage, but they are not
authoritative like the sources I cited.
> You are desperate not to be shown to be wrong. Too bad, Blowhard, you
> are wrong. Live with it.
Actually, I'm right. Whenever "cite" is used as a noun, it's an
abbreviation for "citation," but professional publishers will nix
it.
PeterB - Original
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cite
>
> Noun 1. cite - a short note recognizing a source of information or of
> a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several
> important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the
> front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical
> cases"
>
> Dumbass.
As I said, there are low-level sources acknowledging infrequent, and
in this case, improper usage. That's why the sample sentence does not
use "cite" but rather "citation," demonstrating that "cite" used in
this way is only an abbreviation for the proper word. What you posted
doesn't change the etymology, and I proved it with more authoritative
sources.
Bob Officer
PeterB - Original Dumbass <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 12:04�am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:24:47 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
>> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
>> >beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
>> >vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. �By contrast,
>> >pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
>> >occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
>> >metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
>> >detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. �EPA levels are designed only
>> >to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
>> >In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. �The
>> >industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
>> >based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. �It's a convenient
>> >axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
>> >is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
>> >amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
>> >[Ref.http://www.ourstolenfuture.org.]
>>
>> Dumbass Petie has never read about water intoxication.
>
>The point is that water is not inherently poisonous. No one expects
>you to get that part.
No, Stupid, The point is the 'dosage' is what makes it poisonous. IT
is what you have up as the topic. once the point is made, no matter
what you continue to say, you are wrong. The Dosage size is what
counts.
>>http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/hydrationandfluid/a/Hyponatremia.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/10/pathologi...http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
>>
>> Seem he has lost this point completely.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Officer
>> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au
You still missed the point completely. Critical thinking is no one of
your skills, is it?
PeterB - Original
That is not the point being made, Booby. The point being made is that
"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients. As evidence,
there are rarely reports of vitamin induced death but frequent reports
of drug induced death. Sorry that your limited intellect can't grasp
something almost as simple as you are.
> IT
> is what you have up as the topic. once the point is made, no matter
> what you continue to say, you are wrong. The Dosage size is what
> counts.
>>http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/hydrationandfluid/a/Hyponatremia.h...
Peter B
=================================================
OK, dumbass, so you are saying that you brought all this up to support
my points?
Then why did you post the note to begin with?
> You said, "aldulteration of individual nutrients" Trans fats are not
> in
> most foods, especially nowadays.
I never said they were in most foods.
=========================================
Why are you so ridiculous?
> The article said minute changes kill.
Minute changes to what? you babbling moron.
=============================================
I didn't post the article moron, you did.
> Where is your defense of that? You wrote that they kill, you tried to
> explaing it away by it is a necessary risk contrary to the intent of
> the article.
I suggest that you seek immediate medical attention. Tell them you
can't focus because of all the smoke.
=============================================
That said the smoke was normal whenever you tried to think. You post
crap, then start big time major back pedaling when pinned. By now you
probably don't even know what you posted.
> Peter, you are daning, I have you on a string and you are
> dancing. Dance little man, dance.
Gee, I guess you got me. (chuckle)
==============================================
No kidding.
> >> > , and inject all these things into the
> >> > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all
> >> > regardless of dose, etc.
>
> >> There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided,
> >> of course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
> >> determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
> >> because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
> >> hazards aren't there.
> >> =================================================
> >> Sorry bozo, it was written, " regardless of dose, clinical
> >> detection,
> >> or EPA toxicity thresholds" Changing your mind now is too, way
> >> too late.
>
> > Learn to read for comprehension. Regardless of dose, any substance
> > which cannot be beneficially metabolized is inherently poisonous.
> > That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of hazard or that
> > some
> > poisons are not more dangerous than others. I know that goes beyond
> > your comic book education, but that's not my problem.
>
> Wrong dance Peter, it said, "regardless of dose, clinical detection,
> or EPA toxicity thresholds". Nothing more.
Don't feel bad, we know how hard it is to read all the words on the
page. Maybe some day...
================================================
Then cut down your posts to sizes that *you* can manage successfully.
> You aren't dancing very well Peter, stick to the line. You published
> it no twisting and shouting. This is a live dance loser.
I leave all the twisting and bad logic to you, you're so good at it.
==============================================
Huge PKB, you deceive no one.
> >> Poor reasoning on your part, or acceptance of poor reasoning
> >> makes you look very stupid, thoughtless. All the arguments you
> >> now bring up could be applied to vaccines since they help recreate
> >> the natural in a controlled dosage...
>
> > If that was even barely coherent, I might bother to respond.
>
> Can't make it much simpler.
Try writing in complete sentences.
=====================================
I would but you appear to have extensive difficulties in handling them.
I took the liberty to delete the rest of your weak nonsense. I should
have done this earlier in this post.
Peter B
===============================================
I'm going to leave this post alone for future use. No sense in trying to
teach an old fool.
Mark Probert
There is ample evidence that it is also a noun. You just do not want
to concede you are wrong. Typical.
> > This is but another one of you assinine semantics games, and one
> > of the many reasons that intelligent, science based discussion is
> > meaningless with you.
>
> Still can't cite any books you've read on any of the topics you
> comment on? Oh, that's right. You don't believe in books and,
Like I have said, books are not original source material, and are
subject to quote mining, mis-interpretation, etc. of the author. For
science, I go to the original sources.
> wouldn't you know, there aren't any that agree with you anyway.
Sure, Petey, Delusional. I can name one author who has written several
that I agree with. Do you care to retract that statement?
> > The noun form is shown as "citation," which
>
> > > you then must click in order to see its definition. Note that on the
> > > same page the word "cite" is shown with ALL its relevant definitions
> > > (not so for the noun form) and even suggested uses, yet not one of
> > > those examples uses "cite" as a noun. Why not? On top of all that,
> > > both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster agree, listing "cite" ONLY as a
> > > verb.
>
> > So? Cite is used as a noun, this reference acknowledges it as a noun,
> > and you have acknowledged reading that.
>
> If that were true, why didn't your source provide even one sample
> sentence using "cite" as a noun as it did numerous times for "cite" as
> a verb?
Meaningless argument. They cited cite as a noun.
Because it's not grammatically proper. Sure, one can find
> low-level sources noting infrequent usage, but they are not
> authoritative like the sources I cited.
Everything you do is on a higher level. Hot air rises.
> > You are desperate not to be shown to be wrong. Too bad, Blowhard, you
> > are wrong. Live with it.
>
> Actually, I'm right. Whenever "cite" is used as a noun, it's an
> abbreviation for "citation," but professional publishers will nix
> it.-
Prove that professional publishers will nix it.
Peter Bowditch
>The point being made is that
>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
either wish to redefine or do not understand.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
RGrannus
> On Dec 1, 9:58 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>
> That is not the point being made, Booby. The point being made is that
> drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients. As evidence,
> there are rarely reports of vitamin induced death but frequent reports
> of drug induced death. Sorry that your limited intellect can't grasp
> something almost as simple as you are.
That's too great a generality. Many "drugs" are not inherently toxic
(or very weakly so). Some nutrients are quite toxic in high doses or
for certain people (eg, gluten).
Bob Officer
Bowditch <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The point being made is that
>>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
>>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>
>Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
>either wish to redefine or do not understand.
add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
own meaning: "Inherently"
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The point being made is that
> >"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> >drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>
> Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
> either wish to redefine or do not understand.
Since you apparently disagree that drugs are toxic at any dose, do
explain how that is possible.
PeterB - Original
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:54 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
>
> >PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The point being made is that
> >>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> >>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>
> >Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
> >either wish to redefine or do not understand.
>
> add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
> own meaning: "Inherently"
Meaning you cannot intelligently respond to the point made that drugs,
and substances such as mercury, are inherently toxic.
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 1, 10:33 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 9:58 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
> > That is not the point being made, Booby. The point being made is that
> > "dosemakes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> > drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients. As evidence,
> > there are rarely reports of vitamin induced death but frequent reports
> > of drug induced death. Sorry that your limited intellect can't grasp
> > something almost as simple as you are.
>
> That's too great a generality.
The statement that drugs are toxic at any dose is not a generality.
Many "drugs" are not inherently toxic...
Can you name them?
> (or very weakly so).
Toxicity is toxicity.
> Some nutrients are quite toxic in high doses or
> for certain people (eg, gluten).
Gluten intolerance is a genetic predisposition and points to allergic
response, so it is not inherently poisonous. Toxicity that results
from exceeding safe thresholds of vitamin and mineral intake is
extremely rare and shows that nutrients enjoy broad range of
beneficial metabolic uptake, whereas drugs do not.
AusShane
> On Nov 28, 1:06 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:93857e4b-2ca3-480d...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > > pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
> > > occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
> > > metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
> > > detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. EPA levels are designed only
> > > to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
> > > In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. The
> > > industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
> > > based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. It's a convenient
> > > axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
> > > is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
> > > amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
> > > [Ref.http://www.
>
> > Stupid is as stupid does, eh Peter?
>
> > Take this phrase out of the argument, "and other substances that are not
> > naturally occurring"
>
> > Now, let's examine that within the context it was written. Take for
> > instance, baked potatoes, scrambled eggs, pies, cakes,
> > noodles/pasta's
> > Catsup, Beer, Whiskey, Pepsi...
>
> Straw man. Processed foods are still made up of naturally-occurring
> carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and sugars. It is the *adulteration*
> of individual nutrients (trans fats, for instance) that represent the
> risk.
>
> > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all regardless
> > of dose, etc.
>
> There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided, of
> course. I mentioned trans fats. The relative impact of these is
> determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. Just
> because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
> hazards aren't there.
>
> > and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
> > made.
>
> What context is that, moron?
>
> >Not "natural",
> > but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
>
> Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs to
> that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. Real
> vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
>
> > Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah. Is
> > this a joke or what? Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
> > shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot makes
> > blanket statements much in the same manner as yourself..
>
> So quote what you don't understand. Oops. I forgot. That would
> require you to quote the entire book.
>
> > Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
> > goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
> > arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
>
> Straw man. If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
> poison. All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
> metabolize them safely is exceeded. In that sense, the only
> difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
> essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
> exceeded. You can't say that about mercury.
>
> > Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you felt
> > so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't ashamed of
> > looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
>
> Compared to you a rock floating through space has more connection to
> reality. Read a book.
Yet your precious Chinese medicine had been using Mercury for 2000
years. Hmm I thought Chinese medicine was an accepted natural
alternative. Humans have been absorbing mercury since - well since
whenever. If we had not learned to survive small doses and to excrete
them we would have been poisoned to extinction.
AusShane
Medicines and Food are not the same thing village idiot. Any sane
person can make the distinction why cant you???. If we did not develop
the intellect to use biologically active molecules regardless of the
source we would still be feeding colds and starving fevers.
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
Recently, Caulk Company, manufacturers of Dispersalloy, published the
latest
Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and their Direction For Use (DFU)
which
includes contraindications to the use of dental amalgam.
(.http://www.caulk.com/MSDSDFU/DispersDFU.html February 1998)
[no longer available]
I just happen to still have it.
**** the manufacturers are now acknowledging the intrinsic dangers of
this
material.***** The legal implications of this latest development are
far
reaching. If you continue to use dental amalgam you may be playing
legal
roulette with your assets.
Caulk state that dental amalgam should not be used:
1. In proximal or occlusal contact to dissimilar metal restorations.
2. In patients with severe renal deficiency.
3. In patients with known allergies to amalgam.
4. For retrograde or endodontic filling.
5. As a filling material for cast crown.
6. In children 6 and under.
7. In expectant mothers.
The Caulk Co. home page also warns that mercury may be a skin
sensitizer,
pulmonary sensitizer, nephrotoxin and neurotoxin and, further,
cautions that
the number of amalgam restorations for one patient should be kept to
a
minimum.
Caulk has also published the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for
mercury.
Of
particular importance, are some statements made in "Section VIII -
Control
Measures, Inhalation, Chronic: Inhalation of mercury vapour over a
long
period
may cause mercurialism, which is characterized by fine tremors and
erethism.
Tremors may affect the hands first, but may also become evident in the
face,
arms, and legs. Erethism may be manifested by abnormal shyness,
blushing,
self
consciousness, depression or despondency, resentment of criticism,
irritability
or excitability, headache, fatigue, and insomnia. In severe cases,
hallucinations, loss of memory, and mental deterioration may occur.
Concentrations as low as 0.03 mg/m3 have induced psychiatric symptoms
in
humans. Renal involvement may be indicated by proteinuria,
albuminuria,
enzymuria, and anuria. Other effects may include salivation,
gingivitis,
stomatitis, loosening of the teeth, blue lines on the gums, diarrhea,
chronic
pneumonitis and mild anemia. Repeated exposure to mercury and its
compounds
may
result in sensitisation. Intrauterine exposure may result in tremors
and
involuntary movements in the infants. Mercury is excreted in breast
milk.
Paternal reproductive effects and effects on fertility have been
reported in
male rats following repeated inhalation exposures."
Ivoclar/Vivadent go further in their contraindications. They state
that
their
amalgam is:
1. Not only contraindicated for expectant mothers but also for
nursing
mothers.
2. Not only contraindicated for patients with severe renal deficiency
but
for
all
patients suffering from any reduced kidney function.
The Australian Dental Association is now in a difficult, if not
untenable,
position. The prevailing ADA position is that patient exposure to
mercury
from
amalgam dental fillings is medically insignificant. At the same time
major
amalgam manufacturers are exhibiting public warnings.
All dentists must now acknowledge the contradictions between ADA
policy and
amalgam manufacturers' public warnings.
Medico-legally, the dentist who ignores manufacturer's public
warnings
places
himself/herself in a precarious position. Dentists are obliged to be
familiar
with the information provided in MSDS's for the products they use and
if
patients suffer ill effects from the product being used in a way which
is
contrary to the manufacturer's directions, then the dentist may be
liable
for
the consequences. In this situation it does not matter what the
Australian
Dental Association says, as it is the dentist who will be held
responsible.
You
may be interested to know that the American Dental Association has
recognised
such a possibility and in a recent case petitioned the court to
release it
from
a suit filed jointly against a dentist and the AmDA,. The AmDA claimed
that
it
owed no responsibility for the advice being given. The court granted
the
petition, which left the dentist, who had relied on AmDA advice, as
the sole
defendant. It is little comfort that you may be insured.
All dentists must be aware of the potential adverse effects of
mercury
exposure
and must also be attentive to the potential effects in pregnant
females and
nursing mothers. Before placing another amalgam filling, a dentist
might be
well advised to establish that the patient has normal kidney function.
It is
not clear whether taking a medical history will suffice or whether a
kidney
function test might need to be requested. The galvanic effect created
by
placing different metals in a mouth with amalgam fillings has the
potential
to
increase mercury release from all amalgam fillings. This also has
implications
not generally considered when placing stainless steel orthodontic
appliances
in
a patient with amalgam fillings. The use of metal pins with amalgam
may need
to
be reconsidered. If amalgam is contraindicated in a six year old, the
next
question must surely be - at what age is amalgam safe? The scientific
research
shows clearly that mercury is toxic to all people, at all levels. The
Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA lists mercury as
one of
the twenty most hazardous substances to human beings. The ATSDR's
current
allowable Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) for acute exposure are 0.02 mcgm/
m3 and
for
chronic exposure 0.014 mcgm/m3. Compare this with published research,
indicating amalgam mercury vapour concentrations in the mouth, as high
as
87.5
mcgm/m3. The absorption rate of inhaled mercury vapour is extremely
high,
approximately 80% of the inhaled dose, reaching the brain tissue
within one
blood circulation cycle. The toxic threshold for mercury vapour has
never
been
found. Even the US Environmental Protection Agency has so stated. The
existing
occupational standards are all specifically declared to be estimates
only on
the appearance of clinically observable signs and symptoms. The World
Health
Organisation, in 1991, made it clear that there is NO safe level of
mercury
vapour and that amalgam represents the greatest source of mercury to
the
general population.
The spectre of potential liability for adverse effects from dental
amalgam
is
now a reality.
ASOMAT recently made a 4 page submission to the Federal Executive of
the
Australian Dental Association offering confidential background
briefings
about
the latest research to all Executive members and any other officers
or
committees. ASOMAT's submission was conciliatory and asked for the
lines of
communication to be opened so that the ADA could stay informed about
ALL the
research. Our offer of cooperation was peremptorily rejected.
Any dentist faced with patients wanting the removal of amalgams from
their
mouths should note that specific protocols exist for the safer removal
of
amalgam. Unless you are familiar with these protocols, it is not
recommended
to
proceed with the wholesale removal of dental amalgam. You may create
more
problems than you solve.
It would be appropriate for you to contact your insurer and ask the
specific
question..." If I use amalgam contrary to the specific warnings and
contraindications stated by the manufacturer and my patient suffers
effects
known to be associated with mercury exposure, will you cover me fully
for my
legal costs and any damages in the event that the patient sues me? "
Whatever
the answer, get it in writing!
ASOMAT's concern has always been that dentists and patients be fully
informed.
We are very worried that the profession is badly prepared to deal with
these
quickly changing circumstances, especially in light of a recent press
conference in Sweden on the 19th February 1998. At that time the
Swedish
Council for Planning and Coordinating Research, a body commissioned by
the
Swedish Government to review the literature on amalgams, stated the
following..
"Mercury from amalgam may damage the brain, kidneys and the immune
system of
a
great number of people. The effects in foetus and children are of
most
concern." Those are the conclusions of a report soon to be handed to
the
Government. "There is no conflict any more", says Gunnar Goude from
the
board
of the Swedish Council for Planning and Coordinating Research (FRN),
after
reviewing the comprehensive documentation from the four seminars.
"There is
total agreement among the Board members that it is time to move
forward and
leave amalgam.
Jan Drew
Name calling deleted.
Jan Drew
It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
Jan Drew
AusShane
> Nonsense. No level of mercury is safe.
>
> It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
Really Jan who doesnt live in the real world.
Why have we not all died out from absorbing mercury naturally? You
never actually answered that one????
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:09a015fd-d5e2-4e11...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
It is wise that you not try and teach yourself that water is not
inherently toxic. You will need the help of your chimp instructor.
AusShane
> On Dec 3, 12:43 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com>
>
> Name calling deleted.
Oh I think if the cap fits - Again you haven't been able to rationally
explain why he thinks food and medicine are the same thing???
PeterB - Original
No one said that exposure to a toxin is immediately fatal, but it
increases the risk of disease and can shorten lifespan. Based on your
"logic," there would no reason to stop smoking since only 5% of
smokers actually develop lung cancer. THINK.
PeterB - Original
Like I said, dumbo, most human disease is directly linked to
nutritional insufficiency. Diet is a critical factor in disease
prevention, treatment, and cure.
AusShane
I suspect thinking might not be your strong point. If microgram levels
of mercury were to increase the risk of 'disease' - wonder which ones
ALL of them?? We would see an epidemic regardless of time scale and
the chinese would be extinct due to the fact that they used mercury in
traditional medicine for generations. And if microgram levels of
mercury were to shorten lifespan - hmm that explains why human
lifespan has been steadily increasing???
In fact most of us contain trace elements of many metals including
mercury through natural absorption - we have always contained it long
before the industrialised world.
Mercury poisoning does not lead to autism.
In 1971 Iraq imported grain that had been inadvertently fumigated with
methymercury. People consumed bread baked from this contaminated grain
resulting in one of the worst single source mercury poisonings in
history. There were 6500 people hospitalized and 450 died. Pregnant
woman delivered babies with epilepsy and mental retardation however
they did not deliver babies with an increased risk of autism.
There have been several large studies comparing the risk of autism in
children who received vaccines containing thiomersal to those who did
not. The studies were well designed and reproducible, consistently
finding that the incidence of autism was the same in both groups.
Studies of the head size, speech patterns, vision, coordination and
sensitization of children poisoned by mercury show that the symptoms
of mercury poisoning are clearly different from the symptoms of
autism.
Women in the USA were occasionally exposed to mercury when they were
given a product called RhoGam when their blood type was not compatible
with their baby’s blood type. This was to prevent the blood mismatch
harming the baby. The product RhoGam contained thiomersal as a
preservative. Babies exposed to RhoGam did not have a higher risk for
autism than babies who never received RhoGam
And I understand that mercury poisoning does occur - using doses of
bound mercury equivalent to naturally absorbed doses is not poisoning.
Now living in whale.to world you of course will not accept the above
as evidence - or you will come back with some other distortion or
untruth - so I know I am wasting my time trying to be rational but its
fun.
AusShane
Hmm I guess that's why smallpox was eradicated in all those third
world countries you know the ones with starvation diets?
The more we learn about the causes of disease we realise that genetics
plays an increasingly crucial role.
No one is arguing that a good diet is a prophylactic - and
incidentally that obviates the need for vitamin supplements. But food
is not medicine - rabies doesn't respond to a good diet - neither does
type 1 diabetes - neither does ACS neither does....
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 3, 4:30 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 1:23 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 4:19 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nonsense. No level of mercury is safe.
>
> > > > It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
>
> > > Really Jan who doesnt live in the real world.
>
> > > Why have we not all died out from absorbing mercury naturally? You
> > > never actually answered that one????
>
> > No one said that exposure to a toxin is immediately fatal, but it
> > increases the risk of disease and can shorten lifespan. Based on your
> > "logic," there would no reason to stop smoking since only 5% of
> > smokers actually develop lung cancer. THINK.
>
> I suspect thinking might not be your strong point. If microgram levels
> of mercury were to increase the risk of 'disease' - wonder which ones
> ALL of them?? We would see an epidemic regardless of time scale and
> the chinese would be extinct due to the fact that they used mercury in
> traditional medicine for generations. And if microgram levels of
> mercury were to shorten lifespan - hmm that explains why human
> lifespan has been steadily increasing???
Epidemiologists are rather busy studying the link between
environmental toxins and diseases for exactly that reason, the
increasing burden of exposures that become cumulative. As a smoker,
you might well avoid lung disease too, but you can't know the answer
until it's too late.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-96285914.html
http://www.physorg.com/news99828040.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=106261
As for your anecdotal reference to lifespan, smoking has not prevented
gradual increases in lifespan either. I presume you don't refute
that smoking causes illness or shortens life span, or perhaps you do.
If so, you are ignoring the published science.
>
> In fact most of us contain trace elements of many metals including
> mercury through natural absorption - we have always contained it
> long before the industrialised world.
That's why additional exposure is a greater hazard than it would
otherwise be.
> Mercury poisoning does not lead to autism.
I didn't say it did.
I'm glad you're having fun trying to be rational, I just hope you
succeed.
AusShane
Right one microgram to two micrograms = massive epidemic of
neurological diseases.... sigh
PeterB - Original
> On Dec 3, 4:43 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 1:28 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 4:14 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 12:43 am, AusShane <quar...@live.com>
>
> > > > Name calling deleted.
>
> > > Oh I think if the cap fits - Again you haven't been able to rationally
> > > explain why he thinks food and medicine are the same thing???
>
> > Like I said, dumbo, most human disease is directly linked to
> > nutritional insufficiency. Diet is a critical factor in disease
> > prevention, treatment, and cure.
>
> Hmm I guess that's why smallpox was eradicated in all those third
> world countries you know the ones with starvation diets?
If you are suggesting that vaccine was responsible for declines in
Smallpox, please feel free to cite your source backing that up.
> The more we learn about the causes of disease we realise that
> genetics plays an increasingly crucial role.
That is only true for a very small percentage of human diseases; it is
not true for most **incidence** of disease.
> No one is arguing that a good diet is a prophylactic - and
> incidentally that obviates the need for vitamin supplements.
No, it doesn't. Inadequate diets can be effectively supplemented.
> But
> food is not medicine...
Food is the best medicine, however herbal and concentrated nutritional
therapies are more potent and immediate in their effects.
> - rabies doesn't respond to a good diet -
> neither does type 1 diabetes - neither does ACS neither does....
Diet is just one aspect of natural medicine, and in most cases drugs
are the inferior option. The reason emergency medicine is so
effective is that it borrows so heavily from nutritional science and
biosynthetics, i.e, magnesium sulfate, insulin, thiamine, N acetyl
cystine, Glucagon, etc.
PeterB - Original
>
> > > > > Why have we not all died out from absorbing mercury naturally? You
> > > > > never actually answered that one????
>
> > > > No one said that exposure to a toxin is immediately fatal, but it
> > > > increases the risk of disease and can shorten lifespan. Based on your
> > > > "logic," there would no reason to stop smoking since only 5% of
> > > > smokers actually develop lung cancer. THINK.
>
> > > I suspect thinking might not be your strong point. If microgram levels
> > > of mercury were to increase the risk of 'disease' - wonder which ones
> > > ALL of them?? We would see an epidemic regardless of time scale and
> > > the chinese would be extinct due to the fact that they used mercury in
> > > traditional medicine for generations. And if microgram levels of
> > > mercury were to shorten lifespan - hmm that explains why human
> > > lifespan has been steadily increasing???
>
> > Epidemiologists are rather busy studying the link between
> > environmental toxins and diseases for exactly that reason, the
> > increasing burden of exposures that become cumulative. As a
> > smoker, you might well avoid lung disease too, but you can't
> > know the answer until it's too late.
>
>
> > As for your anecdotal reference to lifespan, smoking has not
> > prevented gradual increases in lifespan either. I presume you
> > don't refute that smoking causes illness or shortens life span, or
> > perhaps you do. If so, you are ignoring the published science.
< chirp >
> > > In fact most of us contain trace elements of many metals including
> > > mercury through natural absorption - we have always contained it
> > > long before the industrialised world.
>
> > That's why additional exposure is a greater hazard than it would
> > otherwise be.
>
> > > Mercury poisoning does not lead to autism.
>
> > I didn't say it did.
>
> > > Now living in whale.to world you of course will not accept the
> > > above as evidence - or you will come back with some other
> > > distortion or untruth - so I know I am wasting my time trying to
> > > be rational but its fun.
>
> > I'm glad you're having fun trying to be rational, I just hope you
> > succeed.
>
> Right one microgram to two micrograms = massive epidemic of
> neurological diseases.... sigh
You skated on every point made and only responded with one retort that
didn't address what was said. Idiot.
Peter Bowditch
>On Dec 2, 5:41�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The point being made is that
>> >"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
>> >drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>>
>> Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
>> either wish to redefine or do not understand.
>
>Since you apparently disagree that drugs are toxic at any dose, do
>explain how that is possible.
Add reading comprehension to the things you are ignorant of.
Just where did I "disagree that drugs are toxic at any dose"?
Peter Bowditch
> Nonsense. No level of mercury is safe.
>
>It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
Why is it used in homeopathy?
Peter Bowditch
>If you are suggesting that vaccine was responsible for declines in
>Smallpox, please feel free to cite your source backing that up.
Why? It would be somewhere in the 3631 articles found by a search for
"smallpox vaccination" at PubMed, and you aren't prepared to look
there.
RGrannus
> On Dec 2, 9:49 pm, RGrannus <RGran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 10:33 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 9:58 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
> > > That is not the point being made, Booby. The point being made is that
> > > "dosemakes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> > > drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients. As evidence,
> > > there are rarely reports of vitamin induced death but frequent reports
> > > of drug induced death. Sorry that your limited intellect can't grasp
> > > something almost as simple as you are.
>
> > That's too great a generality.
>
>
> Many "drugs" are not inherently toxic...
>
> Can you name them?
>
> > (or very weakly so).
> Toxicity is toxicity.
Is insulin inherently toxic? It can be, but it's a naturally produced
substance that is essential to all and indeed must be taken by some
people, but can be toxic.
You're just playing word games and resorting to childish name calling
when proven wrong.
Bob Officer
Jan Drew <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 12:39?am, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 5:17?pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 1:06?am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:93857e4b-2ca3-480d...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
>> > > > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
>> > > > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. ?By contrast,
>> > > > pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
>> > > > occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
>> > > > metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
>> > > > detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. ?EPA levels are designed only
>> > > > to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
>> > > > In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. ?The
>> > > > industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
>> > > > based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. ?It's a convenient
>> > > > axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
>> > > > is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
>> > > > amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
>> > > > [Ref.http://www.
>>
>> > > Stupid is as stupid does, eh Peter?
>>
>> > > Take this phrase out of the argument, "and other substances that are not
>> > > naturally occurring"
>>
>> > > Now, let's examine that within the context it was written. Take for
>> > > instance, baked potatoes, scrambled eggs, pies, cakes,
>> > > noodles/pasta's
>> > > Catsup, Beer, Whiskey, Pepsi...
>>
>> > Straw man. ?Processed foods are still made up of naturally-occurring
>> > carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and sugars. ?It is the *adulteration*
>> > of individual nutrients (trans fats, for instance) that represent the
>> > risk.
>>
>> > > , and inject all these things into the
>> > > argument. According to the argument you should shun 'em all regardless
>> > > of dose, etc.
>>
>> > There are ingredients in processed foods that should be avoided, of
>> > course. ?I mentioned trans fats. ?The relative impact of these is
>> > determined by their proportion to everything else in the diet. ?Just
>> > because diet is often a mixture of good and bad doesn't mean the
>> > hazards aren't there.
>>
>> > > Even the argument itself is ridiculous, Vitamins? Water, Oxygen
>> > > and VITAMINS? ROTFLOL, Vitamins in that context are man
>> > > made.
>>
>> > What context is that, moron?
>>
>> > >Not "natural",
>> > > but assembled and manufactured for your pleasure and good health.
>>
>> > Substances purporting to be vitamins that are not perfect analogs to
>> > that which is naturally occurring are not real vitamins. ?Real
>> > vitamins are good for you, fake vitamins are not.
>>
>> > > Then there is......the LATEST SCIENCE!.............blah blab blah. Is
>> > > this a joke or what? Tiny amounts of a foreign substances? Like egg
>> > > shells? Like coffee? Tea? Meat? Vegetables? Spices? The idiot makes
>> > > blanket statements much in the same manner as yourself..
>>
>> > So quote what you don't understand. ?Oops. ?I forgot. ?That would
>> > require you to quote the entire book.
>>
>> > > Then the statement "a little mercury is still a poison". What is the
>> > > goofball doing here? How about a statement saying that a little
>> > > arsenic is still a poison, yet it is a nutrient our bodies demand.
>>
>> > Straw man. ?If arsenic is indeed a nutrient, it's not inherently a
>> > poison. ?All nutrients can **become** toxic if our capacity to
>> > metabolize them safely is exceeded. ?In that sense, the only
>> > difference between arsenic and water (assuming arsenic is indeed
>> > essential) is the volume at which safe metabolic capacity is
>> > exceeded. ?You can't say that about mercury.
>>
>> > > Yes, I am sure you cut n pasted in all the pertinent parts that you felt
>> > > so strongly about, and I commend you. You surely aren't ashamed of
>> > > looking like the dumbest rock on this planet.
>>
>> > Compared to you a rock floating through space has more connection to
>> > reality. ?Read a book.
>>
>> Yet your precious Chinese medicine had been using Mercury for 2000
>> years. Hmm I thought Chinese medicine was an accepted natural
>> alternative. Humans have been absorbing mercury since - well since
>> whenever. If we had not learned to survive small doses and to excrete
>> them we would have been poisoned to extinction.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Recently, Caulk Company, manufacturers of Dispersalloy, published the
>latest
>Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and their Direction For Use (DFU)
>which
>includes contraindications to the use of dental amalgam.
>(.http://www.caulk.com/MSDSDFU/DispersDFU.html February 1998)
>
>[no longer available]
>
>I just happen to still have it.
you do understand having that document means nothing. what you have
is a document which can be edited by you or anyone. It is worthless.
Since the safety information is constantly changing the MSDS is
always subject to change.
Stupid, Jan Doesn't understand anything at all.
>**** the manufacturers are now acknowledging the intrinsic dangers of
>this
>material.***** The legal implications of this latest development are
>far
>reaching. If you continue to use dental amalgam you may be playing
>legal
>roulette with your assets.
No that are not since you appear to have an out of date MSDS,
>Caulk state that dental amalgam should not be used:
You are wrong. the most you can claim, using an out of date MSDS is
that at one time CAULK stated. Since the MSDS seems to have been
changed or deleted you can no longer use the word 'state' which is
the reference to current MSDS.
You have a sever case of the terrible stupids, Jan. Only an truly
Stupid Person, like you would use or refer to an out of date MSDS.
<snip of Copyright material and out of date MSDS.>
Notice using out of Date MSDS is not a smart thing to do. MSDS
information is always subjects to change, Employees working Jobs
where they change materials should always make sure their MSDS
manuals and binders have up to date information.
Bob Officer
PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 10:21�pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:54 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
>>
>> Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>The point being made is that
>> >>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
>> >>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>>
>> >Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
>> >either wish to redefine or do not understand.
>>
>> add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
>> own meaning: "Inherently"
>
>Meaning you cannot intelligently respond to the point made that drugs,
>and substances such as mercury, are inherently toxic.
No peter you incredibly stupid. Water in small doses is not toxic.
Water in large Doses are toxic. The concept in "inherently" is a red
herring, (that is a type of fallacy in logic). The point is still the
dose is what determines the toxicity of water.
Bob Officer
Jan Drew <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 12:43?am, AusShane <quar...@live.com>
>
>Name calling deleted.
Jan Anal retentiveness Laughed at.
Jan do you really think you actually changed anything?
You're a dumbass.
and control freak.
Bob Officer
Bowditch <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If you are suggesting that vaccine was responsible for declines in
>>Smallpox, please feel free to cite your source backing that up.
>
>Why? It would be somewhere in the 3631 articles found by a search for
>"smallpox vaccination" at PubMed, and you aren't prepared to look
>there.
But peaty has his single source called 'Beaglehole', which in turn
cites another single source. Has either of those sources passed peer
review?
PeterB - Original
> Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. No level of mercury is safe.
>
> >It can and does cause mercury poisoning.
>
> Why is it used in homeopathy?
It is based on the "like cures like" premise that if this substance in
greater amounts would cause the symptoms of disease to be treated, it
can also cure them. While I disagree with that premise, the tiny
amount of inorganic mercury used in homeopathics is usually topical
and presents no risk of mercury passing into the bloodstream. The
following fact sheet from Similasan might be somewhat representative
of this particular application:
PeterB - Original
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:24:42 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 2, 10:21 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:54 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
>
> >> Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> >PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>The point being made is that
> >> >>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> >> >>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>
> >> >Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
> >> >either wish to redefine or do not understand.
>
> >> add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
> >> own meaning: "Inherently"
>
> >Meaning you cannot intelligently respond to the point made that drugs,
> >and substances such as mercury, are inherently toxic.
>
> No peter you incredibly stupid. Water in small doses is not toxic.
> Water in large Doses are toxic.
Ignoring the insult, do you agree that organic mercury is toxic to
cells regardless how small the exposure may be? If not, what
published science supports your view?
> The concept in "inherently" is a red
> herring, (that is a type of fallacy in logic). The point is still the
> dose is what determines the toxicity of water.
If you disagree that mercury is inherently toxic, then you are saying
it supports cellular homeostasis at some level of exposure. Please
cite a source of evidence for that belief.
PeterB - Original
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:24:42 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 2, 10:21 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:41:54 +1100, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
>
> >> Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> >PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>The point being made is that
> >> >>"dose makes the poison" falsely equates the inherently toxic nature of
> >> >>drugs with the inherently non-toxic nature of nutrients.
>
> >> >Add "dose makes the poison" to the ever-growing list of terms you
> >> >either wish to redefine or do not understand.
>
> >> add to the list of words he doesn't know how to use or invents his
> >> own meaning: "Inherently"
>
> >Meaning you cannot intelligently respond to the point made that drugs,
> >and substances such as mercury, are inherently toxic.
>
> No peter you incredibly stupid. Water in small doses is not toxic.
> Water in large Doses are toxic.
Ignoring the insult, do you agree that organic mercury is toxic to
cells regardless how small the exposure may be? If not, what
published science supports your view?
> The concept in "inherently" is a red
> herring, (that is a type of fallacy in logic). The point is still the
> dose is what determines the toxicity of water.
If you disagree that mercury is inherently toxic, then you are saying
it is either chemically inert or supports cellular homeostasis at
some level of exposure. Please cite a source of evidence for that
belief.
p.s. changing the subject header only proves you have no argument.