Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet

From: peterb (peterb_at_mytrashmail.com)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: 22 Oct 2004 21:49:02 -0700

"Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote in message news:<kLydndNzOPQk-uTcRVn-rQ@rcn.net>...
> "peterb" <peterb@mytrashmail.com> wrote...
> > "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote>...
> > > "peterb" <peterb@mytrashmail.com> wrote...
> > > > "Michael C Price" <michaelEXCISESPAMprice@ntlworld.com> wrote >...
> > > > > "peterb" <peterb@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> ...
> > > > Can you name any synthetic chemicals that are beneficial to human
> > > > health? A few are indeed useful in short-term, crisis health care,
> > > > however I'm not referring to short-term exposures during medical
> > > > interventions that might forestall death. Rather, I'm referring to
> > > > long-term effects that I believe are linked to disease progression
> > > > over a lifetime of exposure. Examples are food additives, fluoride,
> > > > hydrocarbons, pesticides, PFOAS, pcbs, and phlalates. Consequently, I
> > > > don't accept that these are variably "good" or "bad" depending on
> > > > levels of exposure. They are *ALL* bad, all the time, simply less so
> > > > in minimal doses.
> > >
> > >
> > > Medications administered for chronic conditions like hypertension are
> often
> > > if not usually synthetic. And some synthetic food additives may well be
> > > beneficial. Some syntheitic antioxidants extend lifespan in animals.
> It
> > > depends on the dose and the substance.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Look at selenium -- it has good effects at some levels and is also
> > > > > toxic at other levels *and* these levels probably overlap.
> > > >
> > > > I think education is so absent on this subject that you have to start
> > > > with what *IS* simple. Very few people think like chemists. One
> > > > reason I responded to your earlier comments was because I wanted you
> > > > to clarify how you implicated nutrients in cancer. I don't think
> > > > anyone has been particularly confused by any comments I've made about
> > > > the toxic affects of man-made chemicals. The only detractors I've had
> > > > so far are industry goons riding shotgun.
> ...
> > > > A summary of my thinking, in case it helps:
> > > >
> > > > 1. All synthetic chemicals are foreign to human physiology and
> > > > therefore toxic.
> > > > 2. No human has an evolved metabolic response to synthetic chemicals.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > That simply is not true. Humans have evolved a number of defense and
> > > detoxification mechanisms for foreign (including many synthetic)
> chemicals.
> >
> > You are confusing immunology with metabolization. In that regard, the
> > response is a direct attempt to prevent metabolic errors in the first
> > place.
>
>
> You are changing the point from your assertion that "All synthetic chemicals
> are foreign to human physiology and therefore toxic."

No, I'm saying that an evolved metabolic response that breaks down
nutrients for energy is different than an immune response that
attempts to neutralize a foreign agent. It's the fact that the
initial response fails that metabolic errors can then occur.

> For that matter,
> detoxification is not the same as an immune response.

> Any response to neutralize an antigen, even a synthetic one, is an immune response.

> But the point is the
> same: foreign chemicals (including synthetics) are neutralized and
> eliminated.

Like the body neutralizes tobacco so that smokers don't get lung
cancer any more often than the rest of us? Don't be a fool.

> Not every single type, of course, natural or synthetic.

Not *ANY* single type with 100% success unless exposure is short term.

> But synthetic substances do not have a chemistry from another universe...

Your body has no concept for "another universe"; it only knows the
difference between a toxin and a nutrient. Your genes are the genes of
ancestors one million years old; as far as "they" are concerned,
man-made chemicals are as foreign as a microbe from another planet.

> they share the same chemical groups as natural substances.

Human physiology does not recognize synthetic chemicals simply because
they are recombinations of existing molecules. Otherwise, Vioxx would
have been utilized as a nutrient rather than resisted as a poison.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet
    ... because the body attempts to metabolize it but fails. ... response, ... We've evolved to thrive on thousands of food ... chemicals that simply haven't been identified. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • My Response to Shapiro
    ... This is my response to an e-mail from Robert ... the processes that led to life clearly, we must first not see it as special. ... When there was energy chemicals changed and some chemical ... You then suggest the necessary energy sources as other than the sun. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet
    ... >> chemicals. ... I'm saying that an evolved metabolic response that breaks down ... into a deadly oxidized metabolite as in mushrooms. ... carcinogens, and the evaluations would be markedly facilitated by ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: coach Dan Allen died - complications of multiple chemical sensitivity
    ... >> There are laws in the US which ensure a workers right to know. ... My comment was in response to what you wrote. ... Neither will a diagnosis of "MCS" prevent any additional deaths, ...
    (sci.med)