Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet

From: Dr. Zarkov (Ming_at_Mongo.com)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:04:47 -0400

"peterb" <peterb@mytrashmail.com> wrote...
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote in message >...
> > "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 ab
out
> > > > > 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.

It's not necessarily an immune response. But the point is that it refutes
your claim that "All synthetic chemicals are foreign to human physiology and
therefore toxic." The body will recognize and detoxify foreign molecules,
including many synthetic ones.

> > 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.

Substances neutralized do not necessarily present antigens; they can be
detoxified anyway--It's not 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.

You've just been such a fool as to refute your own point. The harmful
substances in tobacco (even if not smoked) are natural substances. But
under many circumstances, the body cannot neutralize them. Your distinction
between natural and synthetic substances in this regard is arbitrary and
misses the main point. Whether the body can or cannot neutralize a
substance and whether that substance will be harmful depends on the
substance and the dosage--It has nothing to do with being natural or
synthetic.

> > 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.

Really? So the body considers man-made vitamin C or E foreign?

> > 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.

The body may or may not be able to recognize, use, or detoxify a naturally
occurring or synthetic substance--It depends on the substance; but the fact
that it is synthetic has little or no bearing on it. Conversely, deadly
naturally occurring substances are common--some mushrooms and plants can
contain toxic amounts of arsenic and other deadly poisons, for example.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Drivers License required for surfing?
    ... Virus enters system, enters cells, are reproduced by cells ... Virus now widespread, symptoms start, immune response starts ... A typical URTI (Upper Resp Tract Infection, ... several chemicals are released that act as a red ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Drivers License required for surfing?
    ... Virus enters system, enters cells, are reproduced by cells ... Virus now widespread, symptoms start, immune response starts ... A typical URTI (Upper Resp Tract Infection, ... several chemicals are released that act as a red ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Drivers License required for surfing?
    ... Virus enters system, enters cells, are reproduced by cells ... Virus now widespread, symptoms start, immune response starts ... A typical URTI (Upper Resp Tract Infection, ... several chemicals are released that act as a red ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Toxic tally alarms family - Chemicals found in parents, kids
    ... "There are chemicals in my blood that have been banned since 1977," ... Blood and urine samples showed that Ada, an avid swimmer, badminton ... as substances used in pesticides, flame retardants, stain repellents ... released yesterday by Environmental Defence. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Important we spread this to all groups
    ... unlike prohibition which was an outright 'ban' - no manufacture, importation, distribution, ... prevention and control': ... of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used ... in the illicit production of controlled substances." ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)