Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet
From: Dunne E. Dawe (never_at_never.again)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Previous message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- In reply to: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Next in thread: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Reply: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:38:29 +0800
On 24 Oct 2004 21:31:19 -0700, peterb@mytrashmail.com (peterb) posted:
>We've evolved to thrive on thousands of food
>chemicals that simply haven't been identified.
But they will all be variations on a theme, just like ALL "chemicals".
They will just be various arrangements of a relatively few active
sites.
- Next message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Previous message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- In reply to: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Next in thread: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Reply: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]